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

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
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


A Belated Reply to Michaelson's
Metonic Cycle Challenge

In the last issue published (as fate would have it) Volume X, winter 1974-75, Pensée published an apparently well-prepared article by Professor Irving Michaelson titled “Scientifically Speaking”, and consequently there was not the usual Pensée published rejoinder or follow-up. This may be a good thing.

Michaelson’s  not too lengthy article, which includes the simple math, can be accessed here: http://www.mikamar.biz/Pensée%20X/1010-sci-speaking.htm

"...When Meton introduced the cycle around 432 BC, it was already known by Babylonian astronomers.

A mechanical computation of the cycle is built into the Antikythera mechanism.

The cycle was used in the Babylonian calendar, ancient Chinese calendar systems (the 'Rule Cycle' 章) and the medieval computus (i.e. the calculation of the date of Easter). It regulates the 19-year cycle of intercalary months of the modern Hebrew calendar."

In the article, Professor Michaelson lays out the case for the Metonic cycle obviating the validity of the proposed Velikovskian catastrophism. The basic “fact” that Michaelson uses is that the Athenian astronomer Meton announced the discovery of the 19 year
lunar cycle in year –432. Given that this cycle holds today 2450 years later with remarkable accuracy, he claims that disruption of the solar system, within some arguable previous time span and since, is very hard to imagine or reconcile with this remarkable consistency or almost perfectly uniform (to 8 decimal places?) earth/moon cycle times.

His remarks were quite understated but cutting, “Implications for planetary catastrophism (PC) are then rather direct.” (IOW, PC is rubbish) and “The implications are not positive.” (IOW, PC is rubbish)

In the intervening years between then and now we have learned a lot, and cosmology has taken on a whole new footing, from one based on gravity to one based on the electrical force. We now understand that galaxies are huge electrical systems that are fed by inter-galactic Birkeland currents, where the rotation of the galaxy as a whole is driven and controlled by the current. It is clear that the individual components of a galaxy revolve not around a center of mass but rather around the major galactic axis. In the various individual planes of revolution, there is most likely to be no mass at all at the center point and the term becomes meaningless!

Furthermore, we have learned that star systems are powered externally by intra-galactic currents that focus down on the stars, where nuclear fusion—not always present—is a secondary source of radiated power. The the dynamics of the system and the individual revolutions and rotations of the components of star systems are not just held in balance by the electrical aspects—like they are conceived to be by gravity— but are DRIVEN by the electrical fields. What this means is that:

Premise: The 19 year lunar cycle held back then, has been disrupted since.
but has returned to being almost exactly the same.

 A.P. David writes:

I’ve long since wondered about a connection between the /Odyssey/and the Metonic cycle, initially because of the 19 years. It takes 19 years for Odysseus to return to ‘conjunction’ with Penelope, 10 years of war and nine years of wanderings. I showed at the 2016 Thunderbolts conference that during the war at Troy and the heroes’ returns, the North Pole was in the Great Bear. There had therefore been the 15º shift in the direction of the pole between the epic time and ours, and perhaps also that of Homer’s audience, and certainly the time of Socrates and Meton.

The Metonic cycle is a sign of the celestial order that we still inhabit. So I thought perhaps the Homeric cycle was (in part) a way of recognizing it, by telling a humanizing story about the catastrophic events that culminated in its institution. This cycle is the /Iliad/, Achilles and Helen, and the /Odyssey/, Odysseus and Penelope. By recognize I mean with a sense of fear, awe, and gratitude, but also with a proactive intent. The epic dance itself, which undergirds the poems with its metrical and spatial form, exhibits circular forward motions punctuated by regular  retrogressions, which mimic the orbital predilections of the outer planets (as seen from the earth). There is not just mimicry, but in my opinion a do-as-I-do force to this: may the planet gods continue to move in this orderly way, the joyful way in which we are taking our very steps, and not stray destructively from their paths. There may be a similar intent in basing Odysseus’ timeline on the Metonic cycle, which would mark the current stable order, although the story harks back continually to the preceding period of disorientation (in the quite literal sense).

This does not require that there have been no interruptions since, but only that the customary cycles were restored after any kerfuffle, returning to the calendar after a stretched or squeezed day. The rotation of the earth, measured by who-know’s-what alleged standard, slowed down during the earthquake that spawned the great tsunami in 2004. I presume that this rotational speed was eventually restored, which suggested two things to me: that the earth’s rotation was not a merely inertial thing, but active, and that an unchanged electrical environment would return the earth to its necessary spin as it slid along its equipotential orbit. On the other hand, an encounter where potentials and trajectories were altered would likely result in a new order, once the bodies’ altered plasma envelopes nudged each other into their equilibrial places, in the way that Wal has proposed in his Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (EMOND). One presumes that the Metonic Cycle did not hold in the time when December (per its name) was the tenth and final lunar period of the solar year.

 But the sudden tilt in the pole may well have resulted from an encounter where the sun-moon-earth relationship was able to be restored. There might have been havoc in earthquake and tsunami without an ultimate change in orbits or spin rates. Double layers reappear after a flare from our solid state sun (causing electrically myopic professional astrophysicists to see free-standing magnetic fields magically break up and reconnect). Hence the Metonic Cycle may have held before and after that event.

The /Odyssey/ and Odysseus, the 'man of wrath' and his wanderings and sojourns, the seventeen-year cycle of Martian conjunctions that got Velikovsky's  attention, and the Metonic Cycle are much on my mind.

We need to get comfortable with the  idea that, even though disrupted, the earth-moon-solar cycles return  to their values set by the electrical environment. It helps a lot to get a sense of scale for the whole setup. The earth and moon are tiny in comparison to the sun, the earth being like a BB compared to the sun’s basketball. Forces and shakeups that severely traumatize the earth may be hardly noticeable in regard to the sun and or the major planets, mere minor fluctuations that easily return orbital dynamics to their former values.

In summation: The consistency between the value of the Metonic cycle
of Meton’s day and that of our time does NOT tell us anything of value
concerning intermediate changes and chronological irregularities—major
though they may be—or their absence.I wouldn’t like to have had the job of convincing Michaelson and his ilk back in the early 70’s, though.

The bigger perspective that can be taken from this, IMO, is once again
we see that human myth and inferences largely implied by stratigraphic
considerations—a la Heinsohn—have to trump the constraints of
mainstream science, “history” and their huge assortment of assumptions
and uniformistic thinking.

Sometimes, in the spiritual realm of science and religion, some of the
most basic yet absurd doctrines hold sway, and people seem to put an
almost unshakeable faith in these house-building cards.

Mel Acheson writes:

Michelson's criticism of Velikovsky's reconstruction was that the close resonances in orbits were unlikely to be established in the short time between the alleged final disruption & Meton's announcement of the Metonic cycle. Michelson was writing before there was any significant recognition of plasma: Gravity was assumed to be the only significant force that would operate, & inertial mass was the only significant property to be operated on. Since gravity is such a weak force relative to the amount of inertia to be influenced, any disruption—or even original establishment—of that resonance would take a long time, presumably much longer than 200 years. Also, the system is presumed to be closed.

The introduction of electrodynamic plasma effects makes possible, even likely, the irrelevance of any gravity/inertial considerations. It raises the possibility that rotation of planets is a driven resonance effect, like an electric motor, in which the rotation, & its fluctuations & recovery, are conditioned by the circuit characteristics, not by the amount of copper (inertial mass) in the motor. CMEs, for example, slow rotation when they strike; the rotation rate recovers to its prior period after the CME passes. Such a system is also open.

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