Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Relativity Theory

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors


KRONOS Vol X, No. 2



The core of a large gaseous planet can be displaced from its central position by a small radial force. This will produce turbulence which could lead to further displacement, since the restoring gravitational force is very small. It is claimed(1) that the energy stored in the core of Jupiter is much greater than that required to eject material equal to the present mass of Venus at surface escape velocity from Jupiter.

Some notes are included later on the effect of the expulsion of core material from Saturn, which would appear to entail the infall of material at the site of the Great Red Spot of Jupiter as well as the ejection of a separate mass to become the planet Venus. Evidence based on mythology which supports one or other of these alternatives is outside the scope of this paper.

The process of ejection which was proposed in Ref. 1 is the reactive force of an eruption from within the core, since this is highly compressed and hot. Its movement radially into regions of lower ambient pressure and temperature would cause the eruption to continue, and this process would be self-sustaining if the core accelerates outwards and if the direction of the eruption is inwards, or mainly inwards. The steady losing of mass from the core would help to sustain its acceleration and it was claimed that the residue would eventually emerge from Jupiter, probably near its equator, the site being marked by the Great Red Spot.

In round numbers and ignoring the effect of the rotation of Jupiter, a minimum relative velocity of 61 km/s at the surface of Jupiter is required for an unassisted escape, that is, without any continuing propulsion. As the planet is travelling at 13 km/s in its solar orbit, the initial velocity of the ejected material may only need to be 48 km/s in the opposite direction (except that in this case the final orbit would still be in this direction, so it must have a component of velocity at right angles to the path of Jupiter). The ejected material is pulled back towards the planet, considerably reducing its velocity, but if its minimum value still exceeds 18 km/s it is likely to escape completely from the solar system.

It is claimed in the following description of the ejection process that whatever causes the radial acceleration of the core material will continue to function for some time after this material leaves the surface of Jupiter, so a much lower maximum velocity than 61 km/s at this position would suffice for the core to attain an independent solar orbit.

Assuming the core is ejected and escapes from Jupiter at a velocity less than 18km/s, is it possible for it to travel from a location about 778 million km from the Sun to a stable near-circular orbit at 108 million km from the Sun; that is, to become the planet Venus? Various claims have been made concerning the possibility of such drastic "irregular" cosmic motions, many of which are reviewed and discussed in the report of the SIS Conference "Ages in Chaos?" at Glasgow, U.K. in April 1978.(2) The same report contains a statement by a professional astronomer who took part in the conference, and who also happens to be interested in the Velikovsky scenario, indicating that these claims are not convincing to him as a specialist in solar system dynamics. After stating that he suspects the solar system orbits have been stable over millions of years, he writes: "I therefore, summarising, would say that the situation in orthodox informed astronomy is that there is no evidence that we need go beyond Newton's Law of Gravitation in explaining the observed movements of the planets, moons, satellites, interplanetary spacecraft and artificial satellites."(3) It is not surprising that few orthodox astronomers are willing even to consider the planetary disturbances proposed by Velikovsky and have not "wasted" computer time in studying systems postulated to explain such events.

One of the arguments intended to support the idea that the planetary orbits have been stable for millions of years is the Titius-Bode "law" of mathematical relationship of planetary orbit dimensions. This should be considered in the context of extensive evidence for recent planetary orbital changes, bearing in mind the comment in a reputable reference book of astronomy that "the Titius-Bode law . . . is most probably a mere coincidence".(4)

I obtained a personal computer system in 1983, comprising a BBC micro B, made by Acorn, Microvitec monitor and Epson MX 80F/T III printer, for which I compiled various programs to calculate and plot numerous cosmic orbits by iterative methods. It would have been impossible for anyone to do these studies in adequate detail by direct calculations. The outcome of this work is that I consider it extremely unlikely that the suggested erratic Jupiter-Venus path (or Saturn-Venus path) can be satisfactorily explained solely by the law of gravitation, even allowing for numerous planetary near-encounters and deflections.

Further study led me to realise that such erratic paths can be explained if additional forces due to electrical processes are included in the calculations. Moreover, these forces then helped to make it clear that there is an alternative to the reaction process to explain how the core material could be ejected from a gaseous planet, and from which the initial velocity and charge conditions needed for the Jupiter-to-Venus situation can be derived.

Another consequence of this theory is that disturbances to Mars and Earth during the transit of the ejected core would be quite different from those entailed in previously suggested cosmic path characteristics. The scale of orbital disturbances of planets is comparatively minor, but it could produce calendric changes of several days per year.

In the following sections of this paper the details of the transit path are described before the ejection process, as this sequence corresponds to the discovery of the proposed explanation of these items. The interactions of the ejected core with Mars and Earth, involving abnormal tidal forces and orbital disturbances, will be dealt with in a separate paper.


If only gravity acts on a cosmic body in motion at the orbital distance of Jupiter, the body will travel in an elliptical path (unless it exceeds escape velocity) with the Sun at a focal point, returning to pass through its point of origin. In the course of time its path may change due to interactions with Jupiter and other planets. The chance of an actual collision is very unlikely even assuming the cosmic bodies all move in one plane. A series of computer runs shows that in a few hundred years there is no definite trend towards a more circular orbit, as any deflections are as likely to be in one direction as another. Furthermore, a small change in the initial assumed velocity may make a considerable difference to the shape of the resultant orbit following near encounters, making it impossible to formulate any general probable trend in the final position of an ejected core.

The gravitational force between a cosmic body and the Sun is a constant times the product of the masses divided by the square of the separation distance. If this "constant" is gradually increased, the body will then spiral inwards and will only attain a stable orbit when the value of the parameter becomes constant again at a larger value. There is, of course, no question of changing the constant of gravitation, but the spiral-in effect is obtained if there is an electrical repulsion between the body and the Sun, which reduces the total attractive pull between them. Then, as the charge on the body leaks away, the resultant pull increases and the body spirals inwards until it attains a stable orbit when it is fully discharged or reaches a steady-state charged condition. In the equations of motion, the "constant" of attraction is reduced by a factor at the start of the transit and the value of this factor gradually increases to unity. [Cf. R. Forshufvud, KRONOS VII:2 (1982), pp. 3-28, who presents a non-electrical alternative process that produces a similar spiraling inward. - CLE]

This process requires charges of like sign on both the Sun and the ejected core. A charge on the Sun would not change appreciably in the course of a few thousand years and it is considered to have a steady-state positive charge for the reasons described in my papers in The Observatory (5) and SIS Review.(6) The mechanism claimed to produce a positive charge applies to all radiant bodies due to the action of radiation pressure in expelling small charged particles from the star's atmosphere, as they are likely to have a preponderance of negative charges, leaving the surplus positive charge on the star. This is a continuous process producing a steady-state condition and it implies that planets at temperatures too low to have any effective radiation pressure will have a steady-state negative charge. The charges will slightly increase the attractive force between planet and Sun equivalent in gravitational terms to a small increase in the product of the masses of planet and Sun. The charges would be impossible to detect unless some abnormal event occurs, such as a close encounter between a planet and a cosmic intruder.

Relative to its mass, a much higher value of positive charge is required on the ejected body than that on the Sun, and it is considered that this is produced largely by pressure ionisation: the "squeezing out" of the outer electrons loosely held to atoms in conditions of extreme pressure and high temperature inside large planets. The nature of this process and subsequent ejection is discussed more fully in a following section of this paper. When the ejected core is in its transit path it will encounter the charged particles of the solar wind. Free electrons and negative ions will be captured, while positive ions are repelled and deflected. This represents a continual leakage of charge from the body until it is fully discharged or attains a stable state with a small negative charge.

Most astronomers will say that even if the body is ejected with a high value of positive charge this would leak away very rapidly because the solar "plasma" atmosphere is very electrically conductive. However, the flow of current from the cosmic body is determined not only by the theoretical value of the conductivity of the surrounding atmosphere, but by the number of charges of opposite sign that are available in a period of time. When these have been captured by the movement of the body and charged particles during this time, the effective value of the conductivity falls to a much lower value. This is what makes it possible in industrial technology to have high voltage switches with contacts operating in near vacuum conditions and small separation distances.

The computer program was run in which the rate of discharge was assumed to be proportional to the volume swept by the core in its path (i.e., its projected area times its velocity) and to the inverse square of its distance from the Sun. This is based on the assumption that the density of solar wind particles at a particular location is proportional to the inverse square of the distance from the Sun. The discharge was stopped as soon as the charge became zero and the attractive force was then that of gravity alone. The computer trace showed that the body had attained a near-circular inner orbit. When the selected initial values of velocity, charge and rate of discharge were modified, the position of the final stable orbit was then changed in a consistent way, enabling the characteristics of the process to be investigated to obtain any desired mean radius of final orbit. At this stage the computer calculations do not allow for the effect of near encounters between planets, which will be dealt with separately.

The effect of changing the rate of discharge was largely to influence the time taken to reach the stable inner orbit. A low leakage rate produced closer spirals, which would also alter the nature and likely frequency of any subsequent planetary near-encounters. An alternative discharge rate function based on a density distribution of solar wind particles inversely proportional to the cube of the distance from the Sun (which may be a more accurate value than the inverse square) made little difference to the characteristics of the transit.

The initial conditions required to arrange for the ejected core to attain the orbit of Venus were obtained by running the program in reverse, starting a non-charged body at the location and orbital velocity of Venus, then slowly charging it at the same rate as the discharge in the spin-in program. This caused it to spiral outwards and it was stopped just before it reached the orbit of Jupiter, when its charge and velocity values were noted. The program was then run in the inward "spin-in" direction again with these calculated initial charge and velocity values. The final orbit was that of Venus, as shown in intermediate stage in Fig. 1 and final stage in Fig. 2. In this computer print-out the typical values for the starting conditions of the transit are 6km/s at 30 deg to the direction of Jupiter, with a charge such that the resultant attraction to the Sun was 30% of the value due to gravity alone. The selected discharge rate gave a very unrealistic transit time of 40 years, commented on in a following section.

[*!* Image] Fig. 1. Intermediate stage of transit (body approximately 50% discharged). Planets shown in arbitrary positions.

[*!* Image] Fig. 2. Final stage of transit (body fully discharged). See following notes.

In Figs. 1 & 2 the stable orbits of Jupiter, Earth and Venus are shown as circular, based on mean velocity values. The position of the ejected body is plotted by iteration calculations starting at a velocity of 5.86 km/s (3.29 along X axis and 4.85 along Y axis). The diagrams show the initial velocity and direction applicable to an ejection with continuing thrust and about I day after exit.

These values represent conditions as they would be a day or so after the ejection from the surface of the planet. The body would have been ejected in a direction away from the orbital motion of the planet, then it is swung round by gravitational attraction to the planet so that it follows the same orbital direction. This is shown in the computer trace of the period immediately following the ejection (Fig. 3). The final velocity is above that required for the transit, but an ejection with continued propulsion would reduce the velocity required for escape from the surface.

A slower discharge rate is more realistic as it gives a longer transit time, the initial velocity being about the same, but its angle to the orbital path of the gaseous planet is reduced. Better computer facilities are needed to produce a series of traces of this type to enable near encounter reactions to be studied in closer detail.


The transit theory requires the ejected core material to have a very high initial value of positive charge. The pressure ionisation process seems to be the only way this can be obtained, as a large proportion of the atoms in the core material, particularly those near the centre, will be ionised. While it is at the centre of the gaseous planet the growth of the core in mass and pressure will cause its total charge and the voltage gradient at its surface to increase steadily. Only the high pressure of the un-ionised material surrounding the largely ionised core prevents an explosive expansion of the core, but eventually a condition of breakdown may be attained. This could be initiated by a disturbance involving the core, as suggested earlier (Ref. 1).

The increasing pressure and temperature is likely to cause a sudden change of state, followed by a contraction and increase of spin of the core. The peripheral friction and turbulence would increase the local voltage gradient and if this is then above the breakdown value at that situation there would be a radial discharge in the form of a flow of positive ions penetrating rapidly into regions of lower density.

This is a form of internal lightning which would have some of the known characteristics of the more familiar type of lightning and some of undersea welding arcs. The powerful flow of current produces a magnetic field which acts on the moving charges to confine them to filamentary channels.

[*!* Image] Fig. 3 Enlarged detail of ejection from Jupiter.

The start position is directly "above" the Sun in these diagrams. The lower diagram is a continuation of the top diagram at a reduced scale, as shown by travel marked in days from start in both diagrams. This shows an ejection at approximately escape velocity with no thrust beyond the surface and forces entirely gravitational (Sun-Jupiter-core). The initial velocity of Jupiter is 13.1 km/s and the core 50.7 km/s (40.5 along X axis and 30.5 along Y axis). Relative velocity Jupiter-core 61.67 km/s.

The values of velocities in km/s at day intervals are as follows:

Day 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Jupiter 13.10 12.99 12.99 12.99 12.98 12.98 12.98 12.98 12.98
core 50.7 5.34 5.42 5.86 6.23 6.54 6.79 7.00 7.18

The core velocity values would be lower for assisted travel without risk of fall-back.

The diagrams show that a body ejected in opposition to the travel direction of Jupiter can attain a solar orbit in the same direction as Jupiter. Other test orbits show that a core ejected in a direction away from the Sun and Jupiter can also attain a solar orbit in the same direction as Jupiter.

Once the discharge starts, it would be self sustaining, fed by the charge stored in the core, much as a thundercloud feeds terrestrial lightning until most of its charge is dissipated and the electrical field in the lightning channel falls below a critical value.

The stream of positive ions represents a massive flow of material out of the central regions of the planet and a conversion of much of the charge into kinetic energy. Some of the material at the head of the the column would be discharged by free electrons in the surrounding medium, so the neutral material would cease to accelerate in the voltage gradient, causing the following charged material to pile up against it, forming a steadily growing mass proceeding to the outer regions of the planet and eventually emerging from its surface.

Evidence has been published indicating that this process has occurred in the Earth's atmosphere. A single very powerful stroke of lightning was noted by a scientific observer and nine minutes later a large isolated lump of ice fell to the ground a few meters away from him. The ice was considered to have been formed from the cooled impacted water vapour trapped in the lightning channel.(7,8) It sounds improbable, but no other satisfactory explanation has been offered, as the ice was not hail and it did not fall from an aircraft.

The enormous cosmic jets in distant galactic objects may also have been formed by the release of stored electrical charge due to pressure ionisation of the material in their large cores. That these jets have many of the characteristics of terrestrial lightning was pointed out by C. E. R. Bruce many years ago, (9,10) although he considered the energy was stored solely in the form of atmospheric charge before being catastrophically released in giant discharges. Whatever process is responsible, the subsequent immense flow of current in the early evolutionary stages of galaxies produces more energy and heavy elements by nuclear fusion of the hot compressed material in the discharge channels. The additional energy involved in pressure ionisation at the heart of stars and galaxies may be an important factor that has been overlooked in the conventional view depending mainly on mathematical theories about Black Holes.

One problem of the ejected core material process is what happens to the displaced electrons of the pressure ionised atoms when the core is in or near the centre of the planet, before breakdown occurs. The electrons will be pulled in towards the positive charge and may remain surrounding the core, in which case the breakdown discharge of positive ions would have to force its way through this cordon. It seems possible that this could take place in the suggested conditions of turbulence and massive outburst of positive current flow. Some or most of the displaced electrons might drift away from the region of the core because of radiation pressure from the high temperature conditions. The voltage gradient produced in this way by radiant energy from the solar surface has been estimated (Ref. 5) and it would be much higher at the surface of the core of Jupiter because gravity is very much less and the temperature is greater at this location.

Many or most of the electrons displaced by pressure ionisation would therefore migrate to the planetary surface and then escape out of the atmosphere entirely, or be neutralised by positively charged cosmic rays, leaving the planet with an overall positive charge.

The effect of the sudden discharge of positive ions from the core would be to produce a powerful jet of material which, if it emerged near the equator, would be swung round with a tangential velocity of about 12 km/s in the case of Jupiter (10 km/s for Saturn) in addition to its radial velocity. The jet would take the form of a vast arc moving away from the parent planet at a rapidly diminishing rate. If this was the origin of Venus it must have moved in a plane very close to the ecliptic, but it was evidently visible from Earth as a spectacular luminous arc, in view of the stories about the "horns" of Venus, while the appearance of "hair" and "feathers" must have been the result of the electrical corona of impinging electrons.(11)

A simple model illustrates the motion of a jet by means of a garden hose from which water flows at a moderate pressure. If the end of the hose is held still and horizontal, the jet travels outwards in a straight line (viewed from above), but if the operator swings round, the jet takes up a spiral pattern as the outward and tangential velocities combine.

If the water supply is not continuous, the length of the jet would depend on the total amount of water, its speed of emission and the rate of rotation of the nozzle. The jet issuing from a gaseous planet would continue until most of the charge stored in the core is drained away and the voltage gradient drops to a value which is unable to sustain the discharge, as in the case of a terrestrial thunderstorm.

The astronomical process was evaluated and illustrated in computer programs for several sample discharge periods, as described later. The variation of velocity and position of components of the jet stream would cause some material to go into different orbits. A large component would hold its charge longer and it would become the planet Venus, while small bodies discharging more quickly would attain outer orbits and become the asteroids.(12) Some of the material is likely to fall back into the planet, leaving traces as smaller "red spots".

The ejection process is periodic, consisting of a slow growth until an unstable condition is reached when material is ejected and the long process of core formation starts again. The time taken to build up a core depends on the amount of infall of heavy element space dust and other debris captured by the planet, and how long it takes for this material to sink into the central regions. Whenever there is an ejection from a large planet in the solar system there is likely to be disturbances to one or more planets, some of which may be serious enough to cause major catastrophes to life on Earth, visible in the fossil record. The suggestion that periodic catastrophes known to have happened on Earth may have been caused by a companion star of the Sun on a 26 million year orbit and aptly provisionally named "Nemesis"(13) is probably a rather less likely cause of these disturbances. [Arguments against "Nemesis" were first collected in Nature 311 (18 Oct. 1984), pp. 602, 603, 635-642. - CLE ]

One other possible cause of catastrophes is the intrusion of ejected core material from other stellar systems, if it is possible for similar material to escape from the solar system. The velocity of escape in other star systems depends on the distance of the ejected material from the parent star and the mass of the star. One hopes there are not too many of these dangerous objects in space.


This section includes details of calculations and computer programs on which the foregoing largely descriptive matter is based. It is hoped that the programs will be available as part of a dynamical astronomy course for purchase from a software organisation, so that anyone interested who has access to the necessary equipment can repeat the various orbits, planetary deflections and tidal reactions. The operator would be able to investigate these subjects in more detail by inserting new values.

The symbol E in the calculations indicates powers of 10, as in the computer programs, e.g: 1.6E6 = 1.6 x 106 2.6E5 = 2.6 x 105 1E20 = 1020

In the computer programs for orbits the values of initial velocity, mass and position of two cosmic bodies are entered and their distance apart are computed. Their acceleration (based on the constant of gravitation) is then computed and from this their final velocity and new position in a specified period is obtained. As the distance between the bodies is changing during this period, their acceleration changes, so a small correction is made for this at the end of each step. This method can also be used when the force between the bodies varies with time as well as distance, such as when there is a loss or gain of electrical charge on the bodies. All relevant values are specified or calculated for two axes at right angles and apply to movements in the same plane, as is approximately true for the planets involved. This method can be extended to deal with 3 moving cosmic bodies to show, for example, the effect of near-encounters.

The traces of the orbits are shown on the monitor screen at whatever scale is required and can be dumped on paper by the printer. The time interval per step was adjusted during most programs as necessary to increase the step time and speed up the program when the rate of change of acceleration was small. The total elapsed time was obtained by summation of the step times.

The orbits program for the ejected material was first designed for a single body of Venus mass starting near the orbit of Jupiter (778 million km from the Sun) and moving at 5.88 km/s at 34 deg to Jupiter's direction of travel. The acceleration due to the pull of the Sun was reduced to 0.27 of the normal acceleration due to gravity. This factor slowly increased to 1.0, when the body was then in the stable orbit of Venus at 108 million km from the Sun. The factor was increased by an amount at each step of the program given by V(5.4E19) / s^3 (rate of discharge), where V is the velocity (relative to the Sun) and s the distance from the Sun.

At the starting point the force due to gravity is GM1 M2 /s2 and that due to charge is kQ1 Q2 /s2 where M1 Q1 and M2 Q2 are the mass and charge of the Sun and core respectively. Therefore 0.27 x GM1M2/M1s2 = (GM1M2/s2 - kQ1Q2/s2) x 1/M1; Q1Q2 = 0.73 x GM1M2/k = 0.73 x 6.67E-11 x 1.99E30 x 4.87E24/9E9 = 5.24E34 C.

If either of these two values of charge, Q1 and Q2, are known, then the other can be determined. Estimates of the charge on the Sun vary from large positive to zero to large negative values, none of which are scientifically very acceptable. A claim that there is a large positive charge is based on the expulsion of negative ions by radiation pressure (Refs. 5 & 6). The value obtained in this way would be considerably increased by extensive internal pressure ionisation and violent atmospheric processes, since electrical breakdown discharges carry away charged material in filamentary channels. A steady state value of 1E20 C (coulombs) does not seem unreasonable, as an upper limit, which gives a lower limit value of 5.24E14 C for the charge on the ejected core material.

If this charge is on a body the size of Venus, the voltage gradient at the surface would be 9E9 x 5.24E14/(6.049E6)2 = 1.29E11 V/m.

If the charge is distributed evenly throughout the core in the initial ejection stage, the charge density would be 5.24E14/4.87E24 = 1.08E-10 C/kg.

The electrical force on this is 1.08E-10 x 1.29E11 = 13.9N.

The gravitational force at the surface is 6.67E-11 x 4.87E24/(6.049E6)2 = 8.9N. The resultant outward force on 1kg is 5.0N, giving a theoretical acceleration of 5 m/s2. If the material is free to move and unimpeded this would produce an expansion of 9 km in the first minute. However, the outer layer of material is being discharged at a relatively rapid rate, so it will fall back and restrict the movement of the charged material approaching from below. There would be violent turbulence and large local variations in the voltage gradient. Streamers of material would be carried away and return. The spectacle of such luminously charged and rapidly moving material seems to be the likely cause of the legends of dragons in the sky.

A charge on the Sun of 1E20 C would produce a voltage gradient at the surface of 9E9 x 1E20/(6.96E8)2 = 1.86E12 V/m. If the charge is spread evenly, the charge density would be 1E20/1.99E30 = 5.03E-11 C/kg. The outward force on this is 1.86E12 x 5.03E-11 = 94 N. The gravitational force at the surface is 6.67E-11 x 1.99E30/(6.96E8)2 = 274 N. The difference of 180 N inward force per kg allows a good margin for uneven charge distribution and the maintenance of a steady-state charge condition.

A check was made to see if this value of charge is likely to have an appreciable effect on the orbital motion of the Earth. There is a resultant negative charge on the Earth giving a voltage gradient near the surface of about 100 V/m.(14) The charge is given by 9E9 x Q/r2 = 100 where r = 6.371E6 m. From this, Q = 100 x (6.371E6)2 /9E9 = 4.51E5 C; Electrical force Earth-Sun = 4.15E5 x 1E20 x 9E9/(1.50E11)2 = 1.80E13 N; Gravitational force Earth-Sun = 6.67E-11 x 1.99E30 x 5.98E24/(1.50E11)2 = 3.53E22 N. Ratio Electrical:Gravitational force = 1:2E9.

This indicates that the steady-state electrical force is only of minor significance in relation to stable orbital paths. The voltage gradient at the surface of the Sun for the orbital requirements of an ejected core is far higher than that deduced from the effect of radiation pressure. However, the relatively small electrical field produced by this process would be sufficient to start off discharges which would then act as amplifiers in producing blasts of hot ionised gases, and these would project charged particles far out into the solar atmosphere.

In the preceding section, the charge on the ejected material was considered as that on a sphere. However, it would be distributed on the jet stream, the movement of which would produce a magnetic field surrounding the discharge and restraining the ions from lateral expansion. If the jet, or part of the jet, consolidates as a sphere, the total charge would by then have diminished and if this then just balances the gravitational force the charge Q is determined as follows:

Charge density = Q/(4.87E24) C/kg. At the surface, force on 1 kg = Q2 x 9E9/((6.049E6)2 x 4.87E24) = 8.9 N. From this, Q = 4.20E14 C, a reduction of 20%. The time taken for this reduction, necessary for the formation of a sphere, can be determined from the characteristics of the orbits. It corresponds to about one fifth of the total transit time.

These calculations are based on forces acting between the centres of cosmic bodies and they ignore any forces due to atmospheric charges. It is also assumed that any electrical forces between Jupiter and the ejected core are not significant in comparison with the gravitational forces.

When the core material is in space it will exert electrical force on all the surrounding charges in the atmosphere and the resultant of these forces will change the values used in the orbit programs. The distribution of atmospheric charge extends in all directions, so most of the forces between them and the core material will cancel out. The movements of charges in the atmosphere will be influenced far more by other small local atmospheric charges, causing their mean velocity increase in relation to the core material to be greatly reduced below the theoretical free range value. Although no attempt has been made to quantify these processes, it is hoped that the general conclusions of this paper will not be dismissed without a closer study of atmospheric charge processes.

A computer program was compiled to investigate the movement and shape of a stream of uncharged material, as a guide, ejected radially from Jupiter at just above escape velocity. The radial velocity selected was 61 km/s and when this is added vectorily to the tangential velocity of 12.3 km/s the resultant velocity is 62.2 km/s relative to Jupiter. Allowing for the orbital movement of 13.1 km/s, the initial velocity of the core material relative to the Sun varied from approximately 48 to 74 km/s, according to the position from which the jet emerged from the surface zone of Jupiter. Of course, the velocity of the jet stream rapidly decreased due to the gravitational pull of Jupiter.

[*!* Image] Fig. 4 Jet stream ejected from Jupiter

(a) original computer trace
(b) trace marked as follows:

  1. Jet stream position at 7 hours from start of ejection

  2. Jet stream position 8 hours later Arrows indicate orbital velocity of Jupiter (13.1 km/s) and peripheral velocity at equator (12.3 km/s)

    Thick line marks distance travelled (86,000km) during rotation of 73 deg for duration of ejection process (2 hours)

    Direction and velocity at positions on the jet stream shown by arrows of length proportional to velocity at that point, as listed.

    Position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    17.5 16.3 15.0 13.7 12.3 11.0 9.6 8.3 7.0 5.8 4.9 4.4 4.4

Fig. 4 shows the computer trace in which the jet stream is ejected from Jupiter at a point facing the Sun, and the distance it travels in a period of 6, 7, 14 and 15 hours from the start is plotted. This is repeated when the planet has turned through approx. 6 deg and moved a corresponding distance on its orbital path, the velocity being calculated for the new initial position. Points are plotted at 10 similar intervals, when the total angle turned was 73 deg. The orbital movement of the planet (about 90,000 km) is shown by the thick horizontal line. In the right hand diagram the plotted points are joined to show the jet stream at 7 and 15 hours from the start and the final velocity and direction of the stream is shown at each of the plotted points.

The computer program was run to show the situation after 20.8 days, when the centre of the stream was about 15 million km from the initial position of Jupiter and the mean velocity of the stream was 8.62 km/s. The velocity and direction of movement at 11 points on the jet stream are shown in Fig 5.

In order to see if the group as a whole had an angular momentum, the sum of the products of distance and velocity of each point along the X and Y axes was determined in relation to the furthest point. The result in units of million km x km/s was 362.83 clockwise (the same spin direction as Jupiter) and 364.65 anticlockwise. The resultant motion is therefore retrograde. This is because the lowest point of the stream (on the diagram) is closer to Jupiter for most of its journey of 21 days and is being pulled towards the planet more than the other end of the stream. Momentum must be conserved, but this applies to the system as a whole, and if the jet stream shown consolidates to form a planet, it will have slow retrograde motion.

The program was run to check the effect of stream emission from Jupiter at other angles of spin. For stream emission starting in opposition to the orbital motion and ending when the planet has turned 61 deg (the stream being directed away from the Sun) the values of distance-velocity moments were: clockwise 306.36, anticlockwise 307.12, difference 0.25% retrograde spin. (This compares with 0.50% in the previous case.) In the third example, the angle ended at the point on Jupiter opposite the Sun and started 61 deg earlier, giving values (in 7 days): clockwise 79.62, anticlockwise 79.16, difference 0.58% clockwise spin, the same as Jupiter. This indicated that an emission in an intermediate position could be selected to give a retrograde spin of any specified value, even when the stream has consolidated into a sphere.

These test jet stream models do not include electrical forces, nor the force of gravity causing the ends of the jet stream to be pulled towards the central regions. When the jet material is well away from the influence of Jupiter and other planets, which is likely to be for a period of hundreds or thousands of years, its charge will diminish and gravity would pull the stream into a spherical shape.

[*!* Image]. Fig. 5 Jet stream (of Fig. 4) in solar orbit after 20.8 days from ejection Velocity at 11 points represented by lines to scale. Value are as listed.

Position123456 7891011
13.712.711.710.79.62 8.577.516.485.484.563.80

The ejected material must have a very high value of electrical charge for its transit from Jupiter to Venus orbits, but as it would lose much of its charge on its way out of the interior of the planet, a distance of over 60,000 km, even if it travels in a straight line, it must start its journey with an appreciably higher value of charge. The voltage gradient at the surface of the core would therefore be higher before ejection, and it would be further increased by the compression of the core to a more compact mass.

If the increase factor is 1000, the outward force on 1 kg would be about 14,000 N, but the pressure of the material surrounding the core surface is 35 Mbars, ie., 3.5E7 atmospheres, or 3.5E12 N/m^2.(15) It would seem that only a very serious disturbance would cause the initial breakdown, unless even higher voltage gradients are generated.

The proportion of atoms in the core that are ionised is of interest. Taking an average mass per atom of 6E-26 kg, the number of atoms in a mass equal to Venus is 4.87E24/6E-26 = 8E49. The charge on an electron is 1.6E-l9 C, so in a total charge of 1000 x 5.24E14 C the number of electron charges is 3.3E36. The proportion of singly ionised atoms is 1 : 2.4E13. From this, it seems possible for the initial charge to be much higher.

Another item not allowed for in these calculations is the effect of magnetic fields, other than those involved in filamentary electrical discharges, because they are generally very small in comparison with electrical forces. Two papers in an astronomical journal have dealt with magnetic forces in cosmology and were mentioned by Velikovsky.(16) Both papers commented on the inability of theories relying solely on gravitation to explain the formation of planetary systems.(17)

The first paper(18) claims that charged material "drawn out of a star" by some unspecified means, at less-than the escape velocity, could go into a planetary orbit because of its deflection in the magnetic field of the star if the charge leaked away before the material reached its furthest distance from the star. The charge required was 1E37 e.s.u. (3.33E27 C) on a mass of 1E27kg, which is about half that of Jupiter. This meant that at least 1 in 1E7 of the atoms of the ejected material had to be ionised, and the charge had to leak away in about 1 year.

The second paper,(19) written by another author over a year later, criticised the first for omitting important factors. One was that the ejection of a charged body from the star would leave an opposite charge on the star and the resultant electrostatic force would be 1E18 times that of gravity, preventing the body from leaving the star. Even if it did leave the star, its high rate of current leakage would distort the magnetic field and prevent the material from being deflected into a stellar orbit. The discharge is caused by the impingement of solar wind charged particles and needed to be 1E6 times as high as is possible in present conditions of the solar atmosphere, so it was only applicable to the remote past in relation to when the Sun was a pre-main sequence star.

The criticism about the effect of opposite charges on the star and the ejected material is not necessarily valid. If a discharge of positive ions takes place from the core, the flow of material would be along the voltage gradient produced by the core, and the discharge would reduce the original overall charge on the star (or large gaseous planet).

An alternative model was proposed in the second paper, in which the value of charge was very much less, so that the initial electrical and gravitational forces were equal. This led to a value of 3E11 kg mass and a charge of 2E20 e.s.u. (6.7E10 C) for the ejected body. The author pointed out that the ejected mass was small and it might disperse into a ring. It is, in fact, so small that it would take no less than 1E12 ejection events (process unstated) to produce enough material to form even the smallest solar planet.

Another difficulty with this theory is that the diameter of the ejected body would be about 600m (for an average specific density of 3) and its charge of 6.7E10 would produce a voltage gradient of 2E18 V/m at its surface, which must make it violently explosive. These objections are just as serious as those criticised in the first paper, indicating that the referees were not very familiar with electrical matters.

The first paper required 1 in 1E7 atoms to be ionised, which the author of the second paper thought much too great a proportion. However, his cosmic body is so small that it requires 1 in 2.3E8 atoms to be ionised, which is not much more realistic. As mentioned, the value for the Venus ejection model is 1 : 2.4E13.

These papers do at least show the importance of studies of electricity and magnetism in astronomy. Another feature of interest is that a spinning charged core produces a magnetic field similar to that of the Earth. As shown experimentally, a charged ring rotating in its own plane will produce a magnetic field exactly the same as that produced by an equivalent current flowing in a conducting ring.(20) A sphere is in effect built up of a large number of rings, so if it is rotating its charge would produce a magnetic field with an axis coinciding with the spin axis. The reversals of magnetic field would then be explained by the inversion of core and shell relative to each other. [But it is not clear how such a model explains the secular variations in Earth's magnetic field and why its axis does not coincide with the Earth's spin axis. - CLE]


The mass of Jupiter is 3.4 times that of Saturn, and both are very massive compared with Venus, by factors of 392 and 117 respectively. It would seem that both these large gaseous planets are capable of ejecting core material and for a mass equal to that of Venus to attain a stable inner solar orbit by the process described.

To determine the initial conditions of velocity and charge for ejected material, the computer program was run in reverse, starting with the orbital direction and velocity of Venus and stopping near the orbit of Jupiter (780 million km from the Sun), then repeating the transit but stopping near the orbit of Saturn (1427 million km from the Sun).

In this program the rate of discharge was not the same as that previously described, so the "Jupiter" values are slightly different. The discharge factor was V(4E6)/s2 per step instead of V(5.4El9)/s3.

The initial values required are shown in the following results:

PositionVelocityDirectionCharge Factor
Jupiter orbit5.15 km/s20 deg79%
Saturn orbit2.96 km/s27 deg84%

The direction is the angle of the transit in relation to the orbital path of the parent planet. The escape velocity for Saturn is 37 km/s, compared with 61 km/s for Jupiter, so the lower velocity requirement should not present a difficulty. The charge required (as a percentage of the acceleration due solely to gravitational force) is 5% higher, which is not a great problem.

In this program the transit time between Venus and Saturn orbits was only 58 years, so except for the direction angle there would be slightly different initial requirements for a longer period.

The main difference in these two transits is that the Saturn one would entail crossing the orbit of Jupiter, with consequent risk of major deflection. However, even in a Jupiter ejection, if this is in a direction away from the Sun the material would probably return one or more times and cross the orbit of Jupiter before spiralling in further to a safer position.

Details of these possible disturbances and tidal effects during transits will be the subject of another paper.


1. E. W. Crew, "Stability of Solid Cores in Gaseous Planets", KRONOS III:1 (Fall 1977), pp. 18-26.
2. "Ages in Chaos?" Report of SIS Conference at Glasgow, U. K., 7-9 April 1978, published by the Society for Interdisdplinary Studies. See, for example, R. W. Bass, "The Celestial Dynamics of 'Worlds in Collision"', pp. 69-76.
3. Idem, A. E. Roy, "The Stability of the Solar System: An Historical Perspective", pp. 66-68.
4. S. Mitton (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy (London, 1977), p.162.
5. E. W. Crew, "An electrical charging process applicable to solar conditions", Observatory 101 (1981), pp. 13-19.
6. E. W. Crew, "Electricity in Astronomy (4) ", SISR II: 1 (1977), pp. 24-26.
7. E. W. Crew, "Meteorological flying objects", Q. Jl. R. astr. Soc. 21 (1980), pp. 216-219.
8. E. W. Crew, "Localized violent air disturbances apparently caused by lightning", Speculations in Science and Technology 5 (1982), pp. 67-75.
9. C. E. R. Bruce, "The role of electrical discharges in astrophysical phenomena", Observatory 95 (1975), pp. 204-210.
10. E. W. Crew, "Lightning in astronomy", Nature 252 (1974), pp. 539-542.
11. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950), Ch. VIII .
12. I am indebted to David Slade for the suggestion that the asteroids may have been produced from material ejected from a large gaseous planet.
13. I. Anderson, "Catastrophe theory rocks evolution debate", New Scientist (15 March 1984), p. 9.
14. W. J. Duffin, Electricity and Magnetism (New York, 1980), p. 132.
15. Loc. cit Ref. 4, p. 215.
16. I. Velikovsky, in Velikovsky Reconsidered (New York and London, 1976), p. 133.
17. R. A. Lyttleton, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 122 (1961), p. 399.
18. D. K. Sarvajna, Astrophys. Space Sci 6 (1970), p. 258.
19. I. P. Williams, Astrophys. Space Sci 12 (1971), p. 165.
20. W. J. Duffin, op. cit, p. 11, referring to A. Eichenwald, Ann. d. Physik XI,1, 1903.

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665