Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory

[Kapriel]

Lloyd I have a question for Dwardu-
Re: planets expelled from a brown-dwarf; how and by what mechanism are materials gathered to one place prior to expulsion, are they in solid or gas form, how are the various elements isolated or chosen, and if the process repeats itself several times, why are planets not more similar in their chemical make-up?
Thanks-
Kim

[Lloyd]

* Kim, I sent Dwardu your questions, which he'll probably answer soon, but I hope to send them to Wal & Don as well, because that's more their field.

* Here are more interview questions and answers from Dwardu.

LLOYD:
You said the proto-Saturn System bounced off the Sun's heliosphere several times before penetrating it and that "the Sun's electrical potential was much higher than proto-Saturn's, which is why proto-Saturn ended up in a flare-up". You've also said proto-Saturn flared up periodically every few thousand years. Was more than one flare-up a result of bouncing off the heliosphere every few thousand years?

REPLY:
Oh heavens, no. As I think I might have already said, space is cellular. In other words, it consists of various adjoining plasma cells. That, at least, according to Alfven. Any star wandering through space—and there are multitudes of them—that passes from one of these cells into another will also pass from one area of electrical potential into one where the electrical energy will also be different. If the electrical environment into which the star moves is higher than that of the one it leaves, it will react by discharging through the extra energy it receives. So this is what could have transpired to the proto-Saturnian sub-brown dwarf as it hurtled on its way toward the Sun. But there is also an intrinsic property which dwarf stars possess that makes them flare-up for as yet unknown reasons. Some have even been found to flare repeatedly in very short time periods.

LLOYD:
Re: "The Abrahamic events came long after the dissolution of the proto-Saturnian system", was Abraham much more than 200 years after the breakup of the proto-Saturn System?

REPLY:
Good question. I haven't worked that out yet.

LLOYD
Re: "the Solar System's cosmic neighborhood is still quite chaotic, with the System itself dangerously close to instability," what can happen with an instability? Can it produce electric current surges that could cause a solar nova that would fry the planets?

REPLY:
One should talk to Jack Laskar, from the Bureau des Logitudes, in Paris, about that, even though he unfortunately based his conclusions on the orbital retrocalculation of present bodies within the solar system, which does not work. He also holds to the dictum that planets form out of circumstellar disks, which also does not work.
- Yet, even so, what we have seen transpire to the planet Jupiter with the impact of Shoemaker-Levy 9 could easily happen here on Earth. Can you imagine what a comet of that size would do to us?
- Now it is true, as Velikovsky pointed out, that comets are getting smaller as time goes by. Most of them are wearing out. And, in accordance with this, compare the stupendous sky-spanning cometary tails ... that were recorded not so long ago with the flimsy-looking minute appendages seen with the naked eye ... [to the?] present. Nevertheless, when one takes the bodies contained within the Kuiper belt and their chaotic behavior into consideration, our situation cannot be said to be the best it could have attained. I'm the last person to be a doomsday-sayer, and chances are we will survive future cosmic catastrophes that, sooner or later, are bound to happen.
- Beyond all that, Laskar *IS* correct in that the Solar System planets haven't yet attained stable orbital paths and inclinations. Believe it or not, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, it does not take much to disrupt either, both, or more.

LLOYD:
Re: "There is no doubt that detritus from proto-Saturn ended up on Earth", could the detritus arrive on Earth by any other means than proto-Saturn's flare-ups?

REPLY:
I hate to be adamant about anything, but I doubt it.
- David Talbott, on the other hand, sees some—maybe even much—of it having come from Mars.

LLOYD:
Would the detritus have covered the entire Earth? Or would it have covered mostly just one side? If so, which side?

REPLY:
All of Earth.

LLOYD:
Do you consider Continental Drift to be probable?

REPLY:
Yes—but not subduction.

LLOYD:
Do you consider Earth Expansion to be probable?

REPLY:
Again, I won't be adamant about this, but it SHOULD be taken into serious consideration.

LLOYD:
Primordial Star has 2 sections called Planetary Hydrocarbons and The Origin of Petroleum. Do you consider the source of petroleum to be biotic or abiotic?

REPLY:
Abiotic.

LLOYD:
Does it originate at depth or on the surface?

REPLY:
Some of it was dumped on the surface. This was mostly sticky stuff, some of which came down in flames. Some of it is indigenous and forms at depths. And this is mostly liquid. But it's more complicated than all that.
Dwardu

[Lloyd]

Wal replied to Kim's Nov. 5th questions above, which I posted in a new thread, called Planet Formation, at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3857. He also said, referring to an earlier post in this thread: I notice that there has been some misguided discussion in that thread about the stabilizing of orbits when I wrote at length about that in Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System [http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s].
* I did read his article, but I didn't remember it, till I got this reminder. What I had said earlier that Wal is apparently referring to is: "I think Robert Grubaugh has suggested that gravity alone would not be able to slow down a body so that it could enter orbit. The body would just sling-shot away in another direction, but electrical forces would slow it down so it could enter orbit."
* Here's an excerpt from Wal's above article, which seems to be what he's referring to.

If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, which changes the [planet's interior] subatomic dipole distortion, the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy [making it closer to the Sun]. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy [making it farther from the Sun]. The closer the encounter between two planets the more substantial the charge exchange and the greater the resultant orbital adjustments. It seems a highly effective means for collision avoidance and for quickly spacing the planetary orbits to minimize interactions — provided the inner planet diminishes its charge polarization (reduces its mass) in the exchange and the outer planet increases its polarization (increases its mass). Is this possible?
- A substantial transfer of electrons from the inner planet to the outer planet along a (visible or invisible) cometary tail [like Venus's plasma tail?] may produce the effect we require. Gravitationally induced charge polarization in neutral atoms forms a weak radial electric field inside celestial bodies. Planets behave like spherical electrets [similar to magnets] with a radial electric dipole polarization. If we remove some of the surface electrons the internal polarization is diminished causing a proportional diminution of the apparent mass and gravity of that body. Conversely, if electrons are added to a body its internal polarization increases, causing a proportional increase in mass [and gravity].

* And I gather that the latter process is how Earth increased in mass and gravity, so that animals and trees could no longer grow as large, except maybe in water. Venus then must have been the inner planet that lost mass and gravity. So, if we go there, we'll weigh less than here, I guess.

[Lloyd]

PROTO-SATURN'S FLARE-UPS CAUSED ROCK FORMATION ON EARTH
* Here is Dwardu's latest set of replies to my last stack of questions.

LLOYD:
You said: "space is cellular ... it consists of various adjoining plasma cells ... according to Alfven." Do you know what shapes, sizes and motions these plasma cells tend to have? And do you know where to find out more about them?

REPLY:
Despite the fact that cosmic plasma has now been studied for quite a few years, the science is still in its infancy. Not enough is yet known to answer the questions you are asking in any detail. This is especially so since most astrophysicists have become stubborn in their refusal to give plasma physics the attention it deserves.

LLOYD:
If proto-Saturn took a few thousand years to move from one cell to another where a flare-up would occur, the cells must be very large, or they must move with celestial bodies somewhat. Do you know which may be the case?

REPLY:
I wish I knew.

LLOYD:
Have you found any clues about the "intrinsic property ... of dwarf stars ... that makes them flare-up"?

REPLY:
Changes in luminous outbursts are transitions which brown dwarfs are known to undergo, actually brightening as they cool with age. This is thought to be because their atmospheric gases condense into liquid droplets which form clouds. Storms are then said to whisk these clouds away, revealing the brighter, as well as hotter, atmospheric strata underneath. The actual cause of these stellar storms is still debatable. I, however, concur with those who continue to maintain that they [brown dwarf flare-ups] result from sudden electrical discharges which, while possibly intrinsic, still remain to be studied in greater detail.

LLOYD:
Have you discussed it with Wal, Don, Tony, or others?

REPLY:
Yes. In fact the little I happen to know about this subject comes mainly from them.

LLOYD:
Do you agree with Wal's theory that the gravity of stars produces charge separation, that causes their cores to fission and repel out through the surfaces, either as CMEs or rocky bodies? I was just thinking that seems like a potential intrinsic property [that might have caused proto-Saturn's flare-ups].

REPLY:
I'll be considering that when I get to it in the work I am presently working on. Until I see how it fits in with what the ancients reported to have seen, I would rather not say anything about it.

LLOYD:
You said that something like "the impact of Shoemaker-Levy 9 could easily happen here on Earth" and that some of "the bodies contained within the Kuiper belt [display] chaotic behavior". Does the Kuiper belt seem to be something like the theoretical Oort cloud?

REPLY:
I have no idea what the theoretical Oort cloud is supposed to look like.

LLOYD:
Do you think a comet like SL-9 could come from the Kuiper belt and strike Earth?

REPLY:
Why not?

LLOYD:
You said: "Laskar *IS* correct in that the Solar System planets haven't yet attained stable orbital paths and inclinations" and that "it does not take much to disrupt" them. Do you think Miles Mathis may be right, that the stablest configuration for planetary or satellite orbits is for the more massive ones to be closest to the primary and the less massive ones farthest? I think that's his theory.

REPLY:
That is what is being discovered in exo-planetary systems, in which multi-Jovian-mass planets orbit as close to their primaries as Mercury does in relation to our Sun.

LLOYD:
You say the detritus that fell upon and covered the Earth probably came only from proto-Saturn, but Dave T thinks some may have come from Mars, I guess by way of proto-Saturn's polar column, or jet. Why don't you think Dave is right?

REPLY:
If Mars had been pouring detritus on Earth throughout the existence of proto-Saturn's polar column, we should be buried in it. Other than the odd Martian meteorite that has been discovered, where is all this stuff?
- Yes, one can say the Martian detritus exists in the vast amount of stratified material that covers most of Earth's surface. But a polar column would hardly have dispersed its sucked-up material evenly all over the world. It would have mainly deposited its detritus in Earth's northern region. And then, none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature.
- There is actually more to it, but let's leave it at that for now.

LLOYD:
What parts of the Earth's upper layers do you think came from proto-Saturn's flare-ups? Could everything above the mantle be flare-up detritus?

REPLY:
That is another difficult question to answer. Indigenous sediment must also be taken into consideration. So, also, must volcanic outpouring. And, despite what some of my own colleagues might say, so, too, must we include eroded remains in the equation. And then there's the mixture of all this. You try and figure it out.

LLOYD:
Why do you think the detritus landed evenly all over the Earth's surface? Why couldn't it land just on the northern or southern sections?

REPLY:
Because, unlike detritus released from a polar Birkeland current in actual contact with Earth, the proto-Saturnian detritus would have been flung out radially, bounced off the inner surface of the enveloping plasmasphere, and captured by Earth's gravity.

LLOYD:
Do any of your books go into how Earth Expansion might have occurred? If you think Earth may have expanded two times its former size, I think its volume would have increased by 8 times. Do you think that's possible? Wouldn't the Earth have been 8 times as dense as it is now? And how can gravity have increased at the surface, if the surface became twice as far from the center of the Earth? Looks like that would have reduced gravity.

REPLY:
As I believe I've told you once before, I do take Earth expansion into consideration. But, as I have also told you, I also take a good look at Earth contraction. Both these theories, and a few others, have to be considered. There is too much that is supposed to be known when very little actually is. This is why the slate has to be wiped clean of all that we have been taught in the past, as well as an awful lot of what we are being fed at present.
- In the meantime, gravity is still not understood. Some experiments have shown that gravity increases as one descends deeper underground. Other experiments have shown exactly the opposite.
- Gravity is not the same all over the world. There are quite a few anomalous gravitational areas around, and some of them are quite vast.
- Besides, what IS gravity? Is it electrical? And is electricity understood any better than gravity?
- Best of all, how do asteroids with supposedly very low gravitational fields manage to hold on to all those massive boulders and other loose detritus on their surface? How, then, can we be certain that gravity relies on density?

LLOYD:
You said petroleum was formed abiotically and much of it was dumped on the surface. Was it dumped there during proto-Saturn flare-ups only?

REPLY:
I can't be entirely sure of that, but probably.

LLOYD:
One TB forum member thinks coal, esp. bituminous coal, was also formed abiotically. Do you agree or not?

REPLY:
Yes I do.

[color=#0000FF]LLOYD:
Do you have any idea how proto-Saturn's detritus fell onto the Earth? I'm wondering if it came down as a mixture of things, or if individual substances rained down separately. For example, would rock dust or lava have rained down separately from petroleum, which would have been separate from the dumping of water?

REPLY:
Yes, because of different specific gravities, materials would have been separated—at least to an extent. But lava did not come from heaven. That is Earth's own excrement.

Dwardu

[moses]

That is what is being discovered in exo-planetary systems, in which multi-Jovian-mass planets orbit as close to their primaries as Mercury does in relation to our Sun.
Cardona

That would be primarily because close-in planets cause more stellar wobble which can be detected easier.

If Mars had been pouring detritus on Earth throughout the existence of proto-Saturn's polar column, we should be buried in it. Other than the odd Martian meteorite that has been discovered, where is all this stuff?
- Yes, one can say the Martian detritus exists in the vast amount of stratified material that covers most of Earth's surface. But a polar column would hardly have dispersed its sucked-up material evenly all over the world. It would have mainly deposited its detritus in Earth's northern region. And then, none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature.
- There is actually more to it, but let's leave it at that for now.
Cardona

Because, unlike detritus released from a polar Birkeland current in actual contact with Earth, the proto-Saturnian detritus would have been flung out radially, bounced off the inner surface of the enveloping plasmasphere, and captured by Earth's gravity.
Cardona

The detritus did not fall evenly over the whole Earth, because the oceans have very little. Also the gravity-driven model is a lot less likely that an electrically-driven model. So we need an electic model that lays the sediment mainly on the continents, and a 4-fold Birkeland Current passing Earth is the likely answer.

none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature.
Cardona

That's probably because the earth rocks, from the ocean bottom, got mixed in with the other incoming detritus. The signatures of rocks is a most complex issue when you throw in the possibility of electrical conditions producing it's own signature in rocks by transmutation.
Mo

[Lloyd]

* Mo, I just sent Dwardu more questions and included your comments and asked for his replies.

[Lloyd]

LLOYD:
You said you maintain that brown dwarf flare-ups “result from sudden electrical discharges “ I guess you mean these electrical discharges are caused by moving from one plasma cell into another one. Am I right?

REPLY:
*SOME* are. As I said, some of them seem to be intrinsic.

LLOYD:
You said: "none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature". What is the Martian signature? Is it argon and neon, hematite, olivine, silicon, iron, chlorine, sulfur, table salt, and or carbonates?

REPLY:
You have to understand I'm not a know-it-all. I never claimed to be. In some instances I have to rely on what scientists report. This is one such instance.

LLOYD:
When you said that, that "none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature", Mo replied: “That's probably because the earth rocks, from the ocean bottom, got mixed in with the other incoming detritus. The signatures of rocks is a most complex issue when you throw in the possibility of electrical conditions producing it's own signature in rocks by transmutation. “ Any comments?

REPLY:
No. I myself stressed the complexity derived from the mixing of detritus from different causes.

LLOYD:
You said: proto-Saturn’s detritus bounced off the inner surface of the plasmasphere before falling onto Earth [and I guess Mars and Venus]. Is this because the detritus and the plasmasphere inner surface were both positively charged?

REPLY:
You'll have to talk to Wallace Thornhill and/or Don Scott on that.

LLOYD:
Did the detritus pour out of proto-Saturn equatorially, or radially in all directions?

REPLY:
As I have already said, most of the material would have been ejected radially. I chose that word on purpose because it can mean equatorially as well as explosively (that is, in all directions). The problem here is that the mytho-historical record contains references to events that can be understood either way. As it happens, this is what I am working on at present. See more below.

LLOYD:
Wouldn’t it come from just a small area of the surface, like CMEs come from the Sun? I thought that was how Wal described rocky planet formation events.

REPLY:
It's difficult to nail this down with any certainty. This is especially so since brown dwarf flares seem to concentrate at one of the poles. This, in fact, would be much in keeping with the mytho-historical record. But there are many other aspects to consider. As I said, this is where I am in the writing of Volume Four. And the problem I am having has to do exactly with that. How does one describe various events that took place at the same time without confusing the reader? It's not easy.

[MO]:
Mo thinks “The detritus did not fall evenly over the whole Earth, because the oceans have very little.

REPLY:
Is he claiming that detritus fell mostly on land? How could the detritus itself know what was land and what was water? Silly question, I know, and I'm not trying to put Mo on the spot. It's just that I don't understand what he's getting at.

[MO]:
Also the gravity-driven model is a lot less likely than an electrically-driven model.

REPLY:
Yes, but we cannot do without gravity. Electricity is much stronger, it is true. But gravity still exists. It works. And it *HAS* to be taken into consideration.

[MO]:
So we need an electic model that lays the sediment mainly on the continents, and a 4-fold Birkeland Current passing Earth is the likely answer." I guess I’ll have to ask him what he means by a 4-fold current. Any comments otherwise?

REPLY:
No. As I have previously said, we do not know enough about either gravity or electricity—especially spatial electricity—to answer the sort of questions you are asking.

[Mo, what do you mean by a 4-fold Birkeland current that caused detritus to fall mainly on continents?]

LLOYD:
Have you thought about why the Mars north pole region has lower elevation than its south pole region? One TPOD suggested that EDM removed the north pole layers and deposited them on the south pole area. Do you think it’s more likely proto-Saturn’s jet that removed the Mars material, similar to the way it probably did on Earth’s north pole area? Do you know if Venus north pole seems similarly depressed?

REPLY:
Because so much depends on these two items, I'll have to get to them in their proper chronological order in future volumes.

LLOYD:
I asked last time if it’s more stable for a larger or smaller satellite to be closest to the primary, but then I reread one of Wal’s articles, Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s, which says “the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet” through the cometary tail and “the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands”. I guess an inner planet could still remain larger after losing mass. Mo thinks the reason close-in planets are found to be large is just because they’re easier to detect.

REPLY:
Yes, Mo is absolutely right on that.

LLOYD:
I’m very impressed with your question: “how do asteroids with supposedly very low gravitational fields manage to hold on to all those massive boulders and other loose detritus on their surface? How, then, can we be certain that gravity relies on density?” I hadn’t thought about that before – about detritus on asteroids.
- In the same article I just mentioned, Wal said: “Gravitationally induced charge polarization in neutral atoms forms a weak radial electric field inside celestial bodies. Planets behave like spherical electrets [similar to magnets] with a radial electric dipole polarization. If we remove some of the surface electrons the internal polarization is diminished causing a proportional diminution of the apparent mass and gravity of that body. Conversely, if electrons are added to a body its internal polarization increases, causing a proportional increase in mass [and gravity].” Does that help answer the question about Earth’s increase in gravity that ended the megafauna?

REPLY:
It might—but it might not be the complete answer.

Dwardu

[moses]

Is he claiming that detritus fell mostly on land? How could the detritus itself know what was land and what was water? Silly question, I know, and I'm not trying to put Mo on the spot. It's just that I don't understand what he's getting at.
Cardona
[Mo, what do you mean by a 4-fold Birkeland current that caused detritus to fall mainly on continents?]
Lloyd

A Birkeland current flows as spiralling pairs, much like DNA. However the current can split into four sections, but not stable in three sections. It can split into seven flows stably and other larger numbers are stable. Now if a Birkeland current flowed past Earth in the past, then it might well have split into four sections, with one flow going over the Atlantic, one over the Pacific, and one over the Indian Ocean, which will mean that there is one more current flowing somewhere to produce the stable four-fold configuration. Now if the fourth current went through the middle of Earth, entering and leaving at the poles, that might account for the present day magnetic field of the Earth, as such a current would have produced a remanent magnetism.

As the other three sections of the current moved over the Earth water and land below these currents would have been transported into the atmosphere, and then deposited in a flow of muddy material onto the continents where there was no Birkeland current flowing overhead.

Mo thinks the reason close-in planets are found to be large is just because they’re easier to detect.
Lloyd

Mainly. Also stars probably split into two and then slowly separate until unstable circumstances occur, when much larger separations could form.
Mo

[Lloyd]

* Mo, Wal seems to suggest that planets and stars with magnetic fields don't have permanent magnets inside. They act as electromagnets, instead of permanent magnets. See e.g. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=21ha5gh9.

It seems obvious to propose that a stellar or a planetary magnetic field is a combination of the field due to a rotating charged body and the field due to moving electric currents impinging on that body. The interplay between the two, together with the effects of uneven and moving distribution of charge within the rotating body, gives rise to the complex and changing fields that we observe.

* I think that's describing an electromagnet.

[moses]

Mo, Wal seems to suggest that planets and stars with magnetic fields don't have permanent magnets inside. They act as electromagnets, instead of permanent magnets. See e.g. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=21ha5gh9.
Lloyd

Yes it is scary having a different idea to Wal. A Birkeland current passing through the centre of the Earth, undoubtably would leave a remanent magnetism. So it really is a question of whether there was such a current. And that this current was not so long ago that the remanent magnetism would have all decayed.
Mo

[upriver]

REPLY:
In that respect, Grubaugh was right and, in fact, the proto-Saturnian system is described in my work as brushing against, and bouncing off, the heliosphere several times before it actually managed to penetrate it. And yes, this one actually comes directly from Thornhill.

Skipping implies a very shallow angle of attack, and if its that shallow then wouldnt you expect it to skip once and continue on its way?? If it stayed around, then what would cause the attraction??

2 negativity charged bodies would not attract, right??

Lets see what the expert Tom VanFlandern says about gravitational capture.

(13) MOON OR CAPTURED ASTEROID?

>From Tom Van Flandern <tomvf@metaresearch.org>

Comment on CCNet 2001 December 7: (2) MOON OR CAPTURED ASTEROID? Alan
Gilmore describes the theory that Triton is an asteroid captured from the
"Kuiper belt". But that theory creates more mysteries than it answers.
Two-body capture under gravitation alone is impossible under the laws of
dynamics. Tidal capture and collision are extremely low-probability
phenomena that require excessive fine-tuning to achieve. Frictional capture
by a nebula around Neptune works too well: The friction continues until
Triton crashes into Neptune unless something makes the nebula disappear
immediately after capture. Moreover, given the similarities between Neptune
and the other gas giant planets, why should Neptune alone have started with
no natural, regular moons of its own when the others have four or more?

The following article offers a more viable alternative. It is updated from
that published in "Worlds apart", a Focal Point debate between W.B. McKinnon
and T. Van Flandern over the origins of Pluto, Charon, and Neptune's moons,
Sky&Tel. 82, 340-341 (1991). It is based extensively on research reported in
"The satellites of Neptune and the origin of Pluto", R.S. Harrington and
T.C. Van Flandern, Icarus 39, 131-136 (1979).

On the Origin of Pluto and Triton
By Tom Van Flandern <tomvf@metaresearch.org>
[Meta Research <http://metaresearch.org>]

Background

Three of the four gas giant planets in the outer solar system, Jupiter,
Saturn, and Uranus, all have natural satellite systems which resemble
miniature planetary systems. Ignoring captured asteroids, these planets each
have four or more large moons revolving in roughly circular orbits in the
plane of their planet's equator, and in the same direction as their planet's
spin. Especially for Jupiter and Uranus, the spacing of these moons is
regular as well because the orbital periods are synchronous, with ratios of
roughly 1:2:4:8.

However the orbit of the ninth planet, Pluto, crosses the orbit of the
eighth planet, Neptune. And Neptune's two outer moons have uniquely
irregular orbits. These two anomalies in the outer solar system stand out,
because no other major planet or satellite crosses the orbit of another; and
because Triton is the only major (non-asteroidal) moon in the solar system
which revolves in the opposite direction from its planet's spin. Neptune's
other classical moon, Nereid, has an orbit so elongated that it is close to
the threshold of escape from Neptune into its own solar orbit.

Moreover the tilt of Triton's orbital plane to Neptune's equator, 20 degrees
(ignoring the retrograde motion), is greater than for any natural moon of
any other planet. And Nereid's orbit is not only tilted by 27 degrees, but
so elongated that it is close to the threshold of escape.

Interestingly, Pluto's orbit also has an anomalously high inclination at 17
degrees. Another anomaly is that Pluto has a moon, Charon, with a diameter
half as big as its own. Such a relatively large moon of a planet is also
unique in the solar system.

An unusual origin for these bodies is suggested by these odd facts. Since
Pluto, Triton, and Charon are similar to each other, but different from most
other moons in size, density, and composition, their formation seems likely
to have something in common. Two schools of thought have arisen about this.
The first holds that, after forming as planetesimals in solar orbit, Triton
was captured by Neptune, and Charon was captured in a grazing impact event
with Pluto. The second holds that, after all forming as moons of Neptune,
something caused Pluto and Charon to escape and Triton to remain behind in
an irregular orbit.
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc121801.html
<snip>



You might as well say that the solar system was built, which is more along the line of my thinking.....
I wonder what kind of civilization could move planets....

[Lloyd]

* Upriver, thanks for the info on Neptune and Pluto etc. I started a new thread on the Planetary Science board, called Planet Formation, where I posted Wal's comment on the subject of satellite capture and included some of his info on planet formation from his website, which, of course, details electrical forces involved, as via charge exchange between planets, which even likely affected gravity.

* Cardona has just replied to more questions, as shown below.

Ice Age
LLOYD:
You said glaciation and melting were part of the flare-up cycle on Earth. As I understand your theory, the Earth used to get glaciation in the north temperate zone, but not in the Arctic circle. Proto-Saturn’s flare-ups tended to melt those glaciers, but glaciation would return each time after they melted. Do you agree with the TPOD that suggested that temperate zone glaciation was due to the aurora, which was sort of donut-shaped and blocked light from proto-Saturn just in the temperate zone? Would the aurora would have blocked heating of the ground enough to cause glaciation?

REPLY:
Agree with it? If you're referring to Mel Acheson's TPOD of last February, he was actually referring to my own work. This is what the entire third part of my PRIMORDIAL STAR is about. And, to be entirely fair, the concept was derived from an intuitive observation by Ken Moss. As there explained, however, it is not the aurora per se that was responsible for the shaded ribbon that cast its shadow on Earth's sub-Arctic region, but the cosmic dust that would have been attracted by the plasmatic auroral oval. The aurora—that is the flickering lights—would have had absolutely nothing to do with it.
I realize that, as always, when stated in such brevity, the entire concept borders on the bizarre, eliciting nothing but the usual disbelief. Which is why its detailed elucidation covers close to a hundred pages in my book. Read it.

Floods
LLOYD:
It seems that there could have been several causes of the melting of the glaciers, all from the flare-ups. I suppose the flare-ups would have produced a blast of heat and maybe a shockwave. Would one or both of those have been enough to melt the glaciers?

REPLY:
Yes. Very much so.

LLOYD:
If the flare-ups also blasted rocks, dust, petroleum and water at the Earth, possibly in successive waves, would one or more of those waves of matter have helped dislodge and melt the glaciers?

REPLY:
The heat was the main cause, but Earth's braking and the incursion of oceanic waters would also have helped.

[LLOYD: Ah, yes, I forgot to realize that Earth's braking would have caused tsunamis, although the oceans were likely shallow and would not have flooded so far, I guess.]

Flare-ups and Detritus
LLOYD:
You said “brown dwarf flares seem to concentrate at one of the poles.” Does that mean the Arctic or the northern hemisphere would have received the brunt of the flare-up blast, with lesser amounts falling on the southern hemisphere?

REPLY:
Exactly.

LLOYD:
Could much of continental rock strata have been formed from flooding, which sorted the detritus in layers by relative grain size? Did you check out the videos at http://www.sedimentology.fr and see how flowing water sorts out detritus into layers of mud, silt, sand and perhaps lime, which can then harden into rock strata? Doesn’t it make sense that numerous layers of sediment strata could have been deposited at once, and while still wet and pliable, some areas could then have been folded by horizontal pressures into mountains?

REPLY:
Unfortunately, Earth's stratified layers are not separated by grain size, relative or otherwise.

Life
LLOYD:
Were humans and most other living things concentrated in the Arctic region?

REPLY:
Some of the earliest signs of life appeared in the Arctic long before anywhere else. So did tropical and sub-tropical plants appear there long before they spread farther south. Even dinosaurs were more numerous in the Arctic than anywhere else in the world. You figure it out.
But did humans remain concentrated there? Who said they ever WERE concentrated there? After all, humans did not themselves originate in Arctic regions. The last thing anyone should do is jump to conclusions.

LLOYD:
Were they often decimated by the blasts of shockwaves, heat, rocks, dust, rain and flooding after each flare-up? Would there have been any safer areas to flee to and would there have been enough time to get there?

REPLY:
Catastrophic nature would not have treated humans any different than it did the rest of the mammal population. But humans were much smarter and could therefore seek safety much better than most other mammals could. That said, quite a few of them succumbed, and that is not to be wondered at. Entire societies that existed during the Pleistocene completely disappeared—which, again, is not to say that every single individual met his end. Or hers, for that matter. But when enough members die, the culture they belong to will often collapse. In any case, again, this is not a subject that can be treated in a few sentences. That's why I write books.

LLOYD:
Did the rains of petroleum cause forest fires and coal formation?

REPLY:
The heat from the flare-ups would have been enough to cause such fires. But, wherever it fell, burning naphtha would have added to Earth's infernos. Do keep in mind, however, that not all rains of petroleum were themselves aflame.

Age of Darkness
LLOYD:
If proto-Saturn was the only source of light, would all phytosynthetic plants have lived only in the Arctic?

REPLY:
No. Definitely not.

LLOYD:
Was the aurora also a source of light?

REPLY:
The primeval auroral ovals would have been too dust-laden to produce any light.

LLOYD:
Would there have been light as far south as the equator or farther?

REPLY:
Yes. Definitely.

LLOYD:
Would the plasmasphere have reflected light to the southern hemisphere?

REPLY:
Yes. Of course.

LLOYD:
Would proto-Saturn have been much brighter than the full moon? How much larger than the moon would proto-Saturn have appeared to be?

REPLY:
It is hard to tell how large, or massive, and how far proto-Saturn was. So, to be honest, the best I can say is: I do not know.

LLOYD:
Do you think Wal is right about Mercury and the Moon being former satellites and progeny of Jupiter and that all our gas giants were brown dwarfs that ejected progeny, as shown by the gas giants' faint rings?

REPLY:
I have not researched Mercury's and the Moon's origins yet.

Continental Drift
LLOYD:
Have you said that continental drift was caused by Earth’s rotation slowing abruptly and restarting more gradually, with momentum causing the tectonic plates to slide over the inner crust, maybe at the Moho layer?

REPLY:
That is the manner in which it could have transpired. But it could also have been due to Earth expansion. Or even both.

LLOYD:
What would have caused the sudden slowing of rotation?

REPLY:
This follows from the fact that Earth does slow down in its rotation, only to regain its former speed, when our present Sun flares up. Needless to say, these are minor hiccups, with the slowing only instrumentally detectible, but it would have been much more energetic with a much closer, even if fainter, sub-stellar primary [proto-Saturn]. And, to top it off, for what ever reasons, brown-dwarf flares tend to belittle those that we presently experience from our present Sun—for which we should all be thankful. See the work of Friedman, Danjon, Djurovic, and Juergens, as well as others, on this.

LLOYD:
Would the approach of Mars have done that via electrical and magnetic braking?

REPLY:
Electromagnetic braking is definitely the answer, but I do not believe Mars had anything to do with it.

Dwardu

[moses]

Skipping implies a very shallow angle of attack, and if its that shallow then wouldnt you expect it to skip once and continue on its way?? If it stayed around, then what would cause the attraction??

2 negativity charged bodies would not attract, right??
upriver

Let's say, Saturn, approached the Solar System then when the magnetospheres of the two bodies touched a current flowed between them, which would have altered the trajectory of both bodies. However the Solar System is in a z-pinch from a Birkeland Current flowing past. Saturn would have also had such a current flowing past it, so we need to consider what happened to these currents as Saturn started to near the Solar System, and what effects this probable change of current had on the trajectories of the two bodies. I expect that the two Birkeland Currents would have merged into the one current and the situation like two beads on a string would have been reached. At this stage there would have been a strong electrical force keeping the two bodies in the line of the overriding Birkeland Current. Thus I think this is the major trapping force making it very common for two bodies to come into the same Birkeland Current. Then it would only require the two bodies to move closer to each other along the line of flow of this current. Once inside the Heliosphere interactions with the planets would have brought Saturn into orbit around the Sun.
Mo

[Lloyd]

CAUSE OF LOWER GRAVITY?
[COLOR=#0000FF]LLOYD:
Re Gravity again, someone speculated on the TB forum some time back that the reduced gravity in Earth’s era of megafauna may have been due to Earth spinning faster than now. Have you considered that possibility? If so, why does it seem likely or unlikely? Saturn's present rotation takes 10.5 hours, over twice as fast as Earth now.

REPLY:
Let's first find out what gravity really is. We might then be able to throw a brighter light on the subject.

OCEANS AND GREAT FLOODS
LLOYD:
Re Floods from the melting of the temperate zone glaciers, you said: heat from the proto-Saturn flare-ups “was the main cause, but Earth's braking and the incursion of oceanic waters would also have helped.”
- I forgot to realize that Earth's braking would have caused tsunamis. But you agree I think that the oceans were likely very shallow then, judging by the depth of the submarine canyons, which could only have formed above sea level? Right?

REPLY:
Yes, the oceans would have been shallower due to the vast amount of water taken up by glaciation. But, in the main, this would only have been drastic along continental shores.

LLOYD:
So the oceans would not have flooded so far inland, would they?

REPLY:
Yes, they would have, because the present submerged continental shelves would have been dry and thus considered part of the land over which the oceanic waters would have been driven.

LLOYD:
Would they have removed only the lower elevation glaciation?

REPLY:
Well, yes—but I'd be wary about that word "only." We also have the height of the land, not to mention ... vast depressions, which vary in places, to consider. All of which requires a detailed study. But that's for someone else to do.

LLOYD:
Do you think Earth had oceans when it first formed?

REPLY:
Probably, but I can't be sure of that. Once again, we do not really know all that much about planet formation.

LLOYD:
And did the polar column suck up much of the ocean water shortly after Earth’s formation?

REPLY:
Probably—but I would not say "much".

LLOYD:
And were the waters in the column released only once during the Saturn System breakup about 5,000 years ago? Or did the polar column likely suck up Earth’s ocean water more than once and release them more than once, i.e. during flare-ups?

REPLY:
Since it's obvious that it released the water it had held during the last event of that kind—which mankind remembers—I would say that it would have released whatever it sucked up during every flare-up.

ROCK STRATA
LLOYD:
Re Flare-up Detritus, you said: “Earth's stratified layers are not separated by grain size” and you seem to discount the evidence at http://www.sedimentology.fr. It’s undeniable that sedimentary rocks are separated into layers of limestone, sandstone and shale and sometimes mixtures of sandstone and shale.

REPLY:
Yes, but you will find different "grain sizes"—if that is what anyone wants to call them—in each and every stratum. The strata themselves are not separated from each other by these "grain sizes".

LLOYD:
And don’t you think the Sedimentology website demonstrates how floodwaters can separate the 3 or more kinds of sedimentary rock, such as by a series of tsunamis? If not, then how do you consider that the different kinds of sedimentary rock layers were separated and formed?

REPLY:
The question is a good one. And I will not pretend to know the answer. Nor am I embarrassed not to know it. Sure—I can speculate, but speculation has often led me to wrong conclusions in the past.

EARTH'S BRAKING AND CONTINENTAL DRIFT
LLOYD:
Re Earth’s braking and slowing of rotation during proto-Saturn’s flare-ups, which may have led to continental “drift”, you said you “do not believe Mars had anything to do with it". Do you believe Mars existed before the end of the Age of Darkness?

REPLY:
Yes, definitely.

LLOYD:
If so, did it exist between proto-Saturn and Earth as it did after the Age of Darkness?

REPLY:
Yes, it did.

LLOYD:
If Mars came close to Earth, would it have been able to slow Earth’s rotation, as proto-Saturn’s flares seem to have done?

REPLY:
Because Mars would have approached Earth directly from above along the Birkeland polar column, as Ev Cochrane has been indicating these many years, I very much doubt it would have had any effect on Earth's rotation.

PROTO-SATURN'S PLASMASPHERE
LLOYD:
Re Proto-Saturn’s Plasmasphere, is it the same kind of feature as the Sun’s heliosphere?

REPLY:
More or less—with but some telling differences. Proto-Saturn's plasmasphere would have been in glow mode during most of its wandering through space. But it definitely would have passed into arc mode once it encountered the Sun's heliosphere. The Sun's heliosphere is currently in its dark current mode.

LLOYD:
And is it the same as planetary magnetospheres?

REPLY:
Not quite. Magnetospheres are the stretched out, or trailing, magnetic fields of cosmic bodies.

LLOYD:
Don’t you say that the plasmasphere, though not originally visible on Earth, made the Sun and stars invisible on Earth as well?

REPLY:
No. What I did say was that the stars were rendered invisible due to the opacity of proto-Saturn's encasing plasmasphere. But the Sun would have been much too bright to have been shielded by this opacity.
- What I have said, both in my published works and during this very interview, is that the Sun was too far away to be seen. And that when man first caught sight of it, it appeared no bigger than a star. But that was when the proto-Saturnian system had already penetrated the heliosphere. From then on, man himself described how the sun grew bigger and brighter as it drew nearer.
- What man did not know—could not have known—is that it was Earth that was drawing nearer to the Sun.

LLOYD:
Is the plasmasphere what later became partially visible after the Pleistocene flare-up as a crescent that appeared to revolve around proto-Saturn?

REPLY:
I'm going to leave the Saturnian crescent alone for a little while longer as this will be opening up a can of worms.

LLOYD:
If light, as from sunlight, shines on one side of a translucent sphere, a crescent appears, like [that] of the Moon. Correct?

REPLY:
Yes, but any such crescent would not have been observable to a member on a small speck of a planet within the plasmasphere's cosmic vastness.

LLOYD:
Are plasmaspheres plasma double layers, where one layer is positive and the other is negative?

REPLY:
Yes, their peripheries are composed of such double layers.

ANCIENT HUMANS
LLOYD:
Re human societies that existed during the Pleistocene but completely disappeared after the Pleistocene flare-up, were there many of those?

REPLY:
How can we tell how many disappeared?
Besides, what constitutes "many"?
Let's say there were enough of them.

LLOYD:
Where were they?

REPLY:
Scattered over Earth's northern hemisphere—with a few of them in the south.

LLOYD:
Do any of your books so far discuss them?

REPLY:
Yes, in the one I am presently working on.

LLOYD:
Were the Neanderthals among those that disappeared at that time?

REPLY:
No, the Neanderthals disappeared much earlier.

LLOYD:
Did many of those societies live far below the present sea level?

REPLY:
Some did.

LLOYD:
Did the Holocene Golden Age follow after that flare-up?

REPLY:
Yes.

LLOYD:
Do you know of any evidence that humans had a fear of doomsday before the Golden Age?

REPLY:
No.

YOUR BACKGROUND?
LLOYD:
Would you like to answer some questions about your catastrophist background? If so, I’ll ask next time.

REPLY:
Why not?

Dwardu

[Lloyd]

CARDONA'S BACKGROUND
LLOYD:
I think I read that you grew up on the island of Malta, east of Sicily,

REPLY:
South of, not east of—but with no cultural connection to.

LLOYD:
had some engineering experience in the Navy,

REPLY:
Electrical engineering.

LLOYD:
and moved to Canada about 1959. Is that right?

REPLY:
August of that year, yes.

LLOYD:
Why did you move?

REPLY:
I did not think there was much of a future for a young person in Malta at the time.

LLOYD:
Is Velikovsky the first catastrophist author you read?

REPLY:
Yes.

LLOYD:
What year did you first read him?

REPLY:
I first came across AGES IN CHAOES in a Maltese book store in the mid 1950s. I browsed through it and mistook it for a Biblical fundamentalist effort. I simply put it back on the shelf. But then, around 1960, I came across WORLDS IN COLLISION in a second-hand book store in Montreal, Canada. I browsed through it and, not realizing it was written by the same person who authored AGES IN CHAOS, even though I did notice a similarity, I thought it might be entertaining. It was already a worn-out copy, the price was right, and I purchased it. Little did I know what it would lead to.

LLOYD:

Did you study history or mythology much before you read him?

REPLY:
I never undertook a course in either. But I had been deeply interested in both mythology and ancient history, to say nothing of astronomy, since before I was a teenager.

LLOYD:
As for myself, I first read Velikovsky in 1969 and was glad to see an ad in Intellectual Digest in 1971 that said a new magazine, called Pensee', was coming out to discuss his claims. I think that was Dave Talbott's magazine, which was published from 1972 to 1975. I still have 9 of the 10 issues. Unfortunately, I loaned #7, I think, to my cousin, who never returned it. That was the issue about the 1974 AAAS symposium on Velikovsky. I think I first read your articles in Kronos magazine, which I think ran from 1976 to 1985.

REPLY:
1975 to 1988.

LLOYD:
I still have probably all of the Kronos issues. I have a few issues of Aeon magazine, which I think started in 1988. I also have a number of issues of Luckerman's magazine, Catastrophism and Ancient History from the 90s I guess.

REPLY:
1978 to 1993.

LLOYD:
Did you found Aeon magazine?

REPLY:
No—David Talbott did. He ran it until 1991. Ev Cochrane took it up in 1992.

LLOYD:
Weren't you the senior editor of it?

REPLY:
I became its editor in 1995.

LLOYD:
Is it still being published?

REPLY:
No. Cochrane put it to bed in 2006.

LLOYD:
Weren't you also an editor for Kronos?

REPLY:
From its very beginning—first as a Contributing Editor, then as a Senior Editor.

LLOYD:
Did you write for any other magazines besides Kronos, Aeon and the online Thoth magazine?

REPLY:
Yes—including the two that are still being published in England by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies.

LLOLYD:

Which conferences on catastrophism did you contribute articles to? [/color]

REPLY:
Quite a few in the United States and Canada, but also in England and Italy.

LLOYD:
Are they available anywhere?

REPLY:
With but one or two exceptions, they were all published in journals.

LLOYD:
Besides those I just mentioned, SIS Review is the only other catastrophist magazine I think I've heard of, but I've never seen any issues of it. Is there any other catastrophist literature you think is especially noteworthy?

REPLY:
Not that I know of.

LLOYD:
I recall some of your Kronos articles were Child of Saturn, which was partly about human sacrifice even among the Israelites,

REPLY:
No—that was "The Rites of Moloch".

"Child of Saturn" was a protracted series about the genesis of the Venerian goddess.

LLOYD:
Jupiter, God of Abraham, and one about the Swastika. Will you have used much of your material from such articles in your books?

REPLY:
I definitely have, with much more yet to come.

LLOYD:
Have you written any books besides God Star, Flare Star and Primordial Star?

REPLY:
Not yet—although I have contributed chapters to collective works.

LLOYD:
How many more books do you want to write?

REPLY:
As many as it will take to bring the protro-Saturnian scenario up to date. That will take at least five more—if I'm lucky to live long enough to write them. I actually need to be cloned.

LLOYD:
What has been your main purpose in writing them?

REPLY:
It is all due to a personal drive aimed at finding out what really transpired in the past, how this made us humans the way we are, and what needs to be done in order to eliminate international, and especially religious, strife.

LLOYD:
When you first read Velikovsky, did you immediately know that he made a lot of mistakes in his books?

REPLY:
Yes—especially in the realm of mythology.

LLOYD:
Did you initially think it was possible that he was right about Venus making close approaches to Earth at the time of the Exodus and later in the time of Joshua and about Mars making close approaches in the 700s BC?

REPLY:
As I have indicated in my past writings, only to an extent. And even then, I was wrong—as so was he.

LLOYD:
What do you think of Simcha Jacobovici's theory that the Exodus plagues etc were caused by the eruption of the Santorini volcano on Thera?

REPLY:
It's possible. But there had to have been more to it than that.

LLOYD:
Did Velikovsky say in his 1950s books that Earth was once a satellite of Saturn?

REPLY:
No.

LLOYD:
Or do you know what year he first said that and where?

REPLY:
That came out in bits and pieces through the years in various articles of his. The truth, however, was that WORLDS IN COLLISION had originally consisted of three parts, one of which, describing Earth as a satellite of Saturn and the Noachian deluge, was deleted and promised as a sequel—a prequel, really—which never saw publication. It is, however, now available on the Inernet, but I refuse to read it in order not to be swayed by it.

LLOYD:
What year did you first study Saturn mythology enough to find that he was probably correct about Earth having been a moon of Saturn?

REPLY:
That question cannot be answered because the realization did not dawn upon me in an instant like a thunderbolt out of the sky. It came to me slowly, little by little, and, in my own mind, I actually fought hard against its acceptance. I could not believe what I was uncovering. But, in the end, the weight of the evidence made a convert of me.

LLOYD :

Did he also suggest that Saturn was initially outside of the solar system?[/color]

REPLY:
Velikovsky? Heavens, no. That came from Ralph Juergens.

LLOYD:
Did you have formal training in logic in school?

REPLY:
No. Luckily, I was not brainwashed.

LLOYD:
Do you think the scientific method needs to be improved?

REPLY:
You bet.

LLOYD:
What does it lack?

REPLY:
Honesty—mainly

LLOYD:
What do you think are the main shortcomings of modern science and what remedies are needed?

REPLY:
The setting up of idols on high pedestals and the cow-towing they demand. What's needed is an admittance of mistaken assumptions when this is called for.

LLOYD:
In my own brief study of scientific method, I concluded as follows and do you have any comments?
The Scientific Method involves:


1. making accurate observations of reality;
2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted;
5. publishing the experiment;
6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.

Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:


1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
2. making an untestable hypothesis;
3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.

Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.

REPLY:
I'm with you on all that.

LLOYD:
Are you interested in manned space exploration and colonization?

REPLY:
It beats wars.

LLOYD:
Do you think it would be neat if humans could siphon off a lot of Venus' atmosphere and move a bunch of it to Mars and crash an icy moon or asteroid onto Venus to cool it off and make both planets habitable?

REPLY:
That and many other proposed innovations.

LLOYD:
Do you think it's possible that advanced beings helped protect Earth from destruction during the transition from the Saturn System to the solar system?

REPLY:
No.

LLOYD:
Do you think spirits may exist?

REPLY:
Of course. I have a whole bar full of the stuff. In fact I'm sipping some of it right now.

Dwardu