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



The new religion of modern mythology

Why the Beef?


True science leaves behind the automatic acceptance of truth that comes from tradition, merely creative and/or “god-inspired” sources. It embarks with the critical human faculties of rationality and logic on a pathway to lead us out of old superstition and away from new, both physical and psychological (btw, the word “psychology” means “soul science”). None among us would fail to join in with the sentiment, “Long live science”, and the creators of this site and its affiliate site www.thunderbolts.info will defend the scientific method to the end.

However, there is a growing awareness in our day and age that much of what has come to be accepted as science has morphed into what is usually known as "religion". Indeed, Bryan Appleyard, in his excellent book Understanding the Present has indicted this “scientism” as detrimental to both science and religion. It now involves an uncritical acceptance of many popular hypotheses that have been taken to the level of approved theory—all but dogma in scientific parlance—, and the institutionalized version of these. Whole generations have been “educated” by teachers who themselves are unaware of anomalies, deal-killer findings, questions and viable alternatives for these sacred cows, these shibboleths of scientism. Appleyard, while decrying the dominance of scientism as it marginalizes “belief” and all other belief systems or religions, rightly identifies it as the de de[?] facto religion of civilized society.

As long as it can masquerade as science why shouldn't it be? Science is supposed to be backed by hard-nosed reality checks made by sober-minded, critical-thinking, well-schooled men: double-blind studies, duplicate observations and duplicate experiments with tests performed and results obtained by independent scientists, etc. Throw in "peer review" for good measure (whoever heard of Christian theologians submitting their concepts of god to Islamic, Hindu, and Jewish scholars for peer review?)

Religions, in contrast, are generally founded upon ancient "sacred writings" (admittedly subject to re-translation and reinterpretation) and/or ancient dispensations of authority. Each major religion usually considers each ancient source other than its own to be fictitious at best, and at worst, an evil-minded and cunningly devised counterfeit to the truth. Scientism marching in the guise of science gets almost a free pass from most of the public, and gets hailed as man’s salvation from “darkness” by its zealots.

Because science has become so confused with scientism and has adopted the uncritical attitudes of religion, the fundamental/taken-for-granted assumptions must be examined anew. See for example, The Origins of Modern Geological Theory.

The producers and supporters of this site and its affiliate are mounting a very broad, almost comprehensive challenge to what we call “the modern mythology”, scientism. This challenge is built on the shoulders of major catastrophists, primarily on the methods and some of the conclusions of Velikovsky, although his reconstructions have been greatly modified. It has had a focus on cosmology and astrophysics because, as compelling as Velikovsky’s historical syntheses of solar system rearrangements may have been, given the current gravity-based cosmology they were dismissed as not being scientifically possible. Velikovsky is widely held to have been completely and irrevocably debunked as a creative crackpot.

A warning about being uncritical toward earlier assumptions

“The progress of physics is unsystematic…The result is that physics sometimes passes on to new territory before sufficiently consolidating territory already entered; it assumes sometimes too easily that results are secure and bases further advance on them, thereby laying itself open to further possible retreat. This is easy to understand in a subject in which development of the great fundamental concepts is often slow; a new generation appears before the concept has been really salted down, and assumes in the uncritical enthusiasm of youth that everything taught in school is gospel truth and forgets the doubts and tentative gropings of the great founders in its eagerness to make applications of the concepts and pass on to the next triumph…But each new young physicist…is in danger of forgetting all the past rumination and present uncertainty, and of starting with an uncritical acceptance of the concepts in the stage of development in which he finds them.”

Percy W. Bridgman (1961), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1946)

The challenge to “accepted as fact” theories

Our challenge focuses on the problems with and alternatives to such “accepted as fact” theories as the Big Bang, redshift equals distance, black holes, the nuclear furnace sun. It moves on to include most of the branches of science: geology, paleontology, chronology dating methodology, archeology, etc., including an interdisciplinary reconstruction of what probably happened in the ancient times. Of course, science orthodoxy cannot leave this challenge alone to grow and develop; it must be neutralized by any means short of criminal activity.

Now, we are all familiar with the more egregious religious zealots and rabid defenders of "the faith", some shouting on street corners, some preaching with passion in the pulpit—often spreading fear and hatred—, some even crucifying themselves or self-immolating, and some busy conditioning young lost souls to martyr themselves by becoming human bombs on suicide missions, killing themselves and as many others as they are able.

The challenge of "Where's the math?"

The first three paragraphs of the Preface in the book The Un-Unified Field

"Are you tired of getting nonsensical answers from a physics that claims to know almost everything?  If so, this book may be for you.  Many years ago I noticed that no matter where I looked—on the internet, at the library, in books, on videos, in classrooms—I found little more than misdirection and fudged equations.  I soon quit expecting anything from the normal sources and instead retired to the largest university libraries and top journals, hoping to find some real information there.  But I found that the explanations in such places were even more convoluted, illogical, and incomplete than the explanations in the mainstream sources.  I found no better answers, I only found denser and more heavily fortified answers.  I found bigger maths and bigger claims of importance, but still found no clear and concise explanations of anything.

Primarily, this was because mechanics was completely missing.  No one would ever tell me what a thing was or how it worked.  No matter the topic, on the first page I was shunted immediately into differential equations or matrices or gauged fields or curved spaces.  This math was never justified itself.  I don't need to be taught math, I just need the author to give me a clear assignment of variables or spaces, but this was never done.  Nor was the math ever tied to the mechanics.  I have no fear of math.  I like math.  But math is a tool.  In a physics paper, the math should be bookended by explanations.  The first part of the paper should explain what the math hopes to achieve, and the last part of the paper should show what it has achieved.  But the modern physics paper has jettisoned both the opening and closing, giving you only the free-floating math.  The simple reason for this is that physicists no longer know what the hell they are doing.  They can't explain anything sensibly, so they don't even try.  They just unload a pile of math on you and expect that to keep you quiet for a while.  If you complain, they browbeat you as someone who didn't take enough math in college.  But the problem is not that the math is too hard, the problem is that the math is fake.  If you study it, you find that it isn't showing what they claim to show.  The math is nothing more than a false front, a parlor game, or a bad attempt at propaganda.

Unfortunately for them, some of us can see through even the foggiest equations.  An important part of my research has been to unwind these equations, showing you the big fudges they contain.  Some of you may have intuited that all this math was just camouflage, and I have proved that your intuition was correct.  But it was even worse than any of you imagined.  I know this because it was worse than I imagined, and I have a pretty vivid imagination.  I assumed that these physicists, being human, were probably blowing smoke at least 50% of the time.  After more than a decade of research, I can tell you that they are blowing smoke around 99% of the time.  They claim to know almost everything, but they know almost nothing.  The math is just a cover for this near-total nescience."

Self Appointed Guerilla-Warrior Defenders

But now, in this micro-electronic-telecosmic age, comes a new breed of “virtual” warriors, eager to give their lives meaning by defending the “truth”, eager to embark on a crusade that will worry and defeat those “deluded” people that challenge their religion. Just as battlefield warriors are not usually the brightest candles in the cathedral, these seem to lack good judgment and critical thinking ability, but they can be cunning and contentious. These have no substantive or formal standing in institutionalized science, and more sensible people—even if they agree with them—rather quickly identify them as too troubled, too much of being a loose cannon. Indeed, these marginalized souls have nothing to lose. They are not coordinated military pieces operating in a disciplined fighting force, but they can be agile guerilla warriors, picking and sniping from the outside.

They do not join in conversation with openness to exploring common ground. Concessions are not granted, rebuttals to their points are not acknowledged; the objective is to hurt, maim, sow confusion, and destroy. Ridicule, invective, insults, name-calling and general derogation are not resorted to in frustration after more friendly discourse; these are often weapons used in opening salvos. Some of these mount mailing or email campaigns to help prevent the spread of heresy to those “weak-minded” individuals who have somehow identified themselves a being open to or interested in the troublesome challenges.

Credentialed Defenders

In contrast to the undisciplined and often unprincipled intellectual terrorists dealt with in the previous section, we have the Brahmins, the heavy-weight defenders of scientism. These are the people who by some combination of merit, political and publishing skill, ambition, strategy, etc., have become the authorities in their field. When approached by science editors who have the cheekiness to ask about the merits of the new paradigm challenges, these exalted “experts” merely snort, “Cobblers, balderdash, complete utter nonsense”. The unspoken message is immediately understood: go there again and you lose access to my offerings.

Our purpose here is not to rail with polemic against scientistic apologists, be they merely guerillas or of Brahmin class. The practical issue is whether there is any help for the interested lay person to sort things out. Let’s start by putting the magnifying glass on the nature and substance of the “rebuttals” and dismissals themselves, for that is where the ultimate crux of matters lies, regardless of the agendas and tactics of the “defenders”. Cannot they be easily and legitimately characterized as:

Lacking in substantive facts or information
Snide innuendo
Dependent on unsubstantiated claims
Appealing to authority versus reason
Devoid of any concessions
Personal credibility assassination
Devoid of any mention of significant problems with prevailing theory

In reference to the above descibed Self Appointed Guerilla-Warrior Defenders and Credentialed Defenders, you are dealing with a group of people who are psychologically conditioned to thrive on negative attention. They are driven to be what they are and they are acting on impulses that are probably buried in denial. No amount of argument or persuasion will be of any benefit.

There's an old saying that applies: Never wrestle with a pig—you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

Below are some samples recently sent out via email:

Example #1

FYI: Subject heading is title of a 10:06 min. You-Tube
video discovered in a Google.com search (no. 17) for
<petroglyphs peratt>:


The video was produced by Dave Talbott's
Thunderbolts.info outfit and features Velikovsky, Carl
Sagan, Wal Thornhill, Dave Talbott, Tony Peratt,
Einstein, and Harry Hess in a slick, error-filled,
dishonest, propagandistic presentation meant to show
that electricity in space is more important than
gravity. View the video and see how many errors you
can identify.

The above is diatribe and polemic, but completely devoid of substance.

All the usual pro-Velikovsky points are trotted out:
Venus is hot and therefore young, hydrocarbons in the
atmosphere predicted (but video does not say they were
not discovered), Jupiter's electromagnetism &
thunderbolts (except Zeus/Jupiter was a Sky God/God of
Thunder long before his name was attached to the
planet; see the article "Finding Zeus" in current
issue of Pennsylvania Gazette about the excavation of
the sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Lykaion whose altar dates
back to 3000 BC, about 1000 years before the Greeks
began to worship Zeus:
<http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0308/gaz08.html>), the
orbits of Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter have changed
recently, "collective amnesia" prevents mankind from
remembering the cataclysms except in allegories, myth
and metaphor, etc.

Being belittled as “usual” doesn’t make them wrong or irrelevant. And “not discovered” doesn’t mean they were proven to not be there. As to claiming “Zeus/Jupiter was a Sky God/God of Thunder long before his name was attached to the planet”, this beggars the fundamental issue that Velikovsky disagrees with the prevailing understandings of ancient mythology, dating and chronology, and wrote well drafted books detailing powerful arguments. This is a very good example of how, over and over again, standard, establishment, current thinking is used as authoritative dismissal, when that is what is being called into question.

One sequence compares Peratt's laboratory plama
discharges to the "squatting stick man" petroglyphs
found worldwide and dating back up to 12,000 years.
However, there is no proof that these figures were
*necessarily* motivated by stupendous aurora that,
according to Peratt, required a solar wind flux ten to
a hundred times greater than at present and for which
no other evidence is cited while such a flux, which
would have affected the production of [10]Be in the
atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays, is contradicted by
the [10]Be measured back 40,000 years in the Greenland
ice. AND, it is a physical impossibility for the
Z-Pinch aurora to extend 701,000 km out from the south
pole, as Peratt estimates, since the magnetosphere is
NOT that thick near Earth and would have been
compressed even more when the solar wind flux was at
least ten times stronger than now, as Peratt claims.
Someone ought REALLY press Peratt with such questions
for that's the only way for progress to occur. Fawning
lap dogs such as exist at kronia.com, Mythopedia.info,
and S.I.S. do not for a robust science make!

Not that this makes the LE guerilla wrong, but he is arguing with maybe the world’s most accomplished and respected high-energy plasma scientist without understanding an iota of the data and information or even the model that Peratt is proposing. Reportedly, Peratt—with help—has gathered 3 million petroglyph data sets (graphics, longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates, elevation, and orientation along with other pertinent information of the surrounding terrain), and can classify over 80% of these otherwise mostly nonsensical carvings as depictions of stages of the plasma discharge seen in the sky by ancient man, all the while themselves worshipping the planets and being obsessed with the electric “wars of the gods”, Of course, the paragraph ends with vitriolic characterization and arrogant claim.

Here is a short list of gripes that particularly
grated on my sense of intellectual and scientific

1. As was pointed out in Kronos IX:2, 1984, James
Putnam and Gordon Atwater were NOT fired from their
jobs because of their association with Worlds in
Collision. That was just the excuse since both men
were subject to other pressures which were the real
reasons.  Putnam was out of favor with President
George Brett because he drank too much wine at lunch.
Atwater's position at the Hayden was tenuous because
he was NOT an astronomer.

Rebuttal to #1:
Whether or not the claims in the paragraph are true or not, they have nothing to do with the issue of the validity of what is being proposed. Their only possible relevance goes to the issue of the establishment resistance to external challenges.

2. Velikovsky was NOT "a noted academic", but just a
very intelligent, polymathic independent scholar,
considering he never held an academic post at a
college or university.

Rebuttal to #2:
***** (V’s credential info)

This is nothing but a vacuous and fallacious claim, made plausible by the overly-narrow and vapid requirement of holding “an academic post at a college or university”. This is a very good example of the disingenuous assault tactics used.

3. Velikovsky was NOT "one of the great pioneers of
20th century thought" BECAUSE he was not original with
any of the major themes upon which his "fame" or
"notoriety" was based (as Jan Sammer confided to me at
our first meeting in 1978), having been preceded by
many others, including Whiston, Radlof, Donnelly,
Beaumont, et al., some of whose priority Velikovsky
attempted to suppress as with Donnelly and Beaumont.
As Clube and Napier pointed out in Kronos, Velikovsky
was the last in the tradition of biblically-inspired
catastrophists, not the first of the scientific

Rebuttal to #3:
While it may be true that to some extent or another Velikovsky stood on the shoulders of the above-mentioned authors, he went far, far beyond where any of them went with his published and unpublished reconstruction of ancient times. He is down on record with many impressive and astounding predictions involving the solar system. As to the claim in the last sentence, to have him mis-characterized by other nay saying establishment proponents is hardly impactful, one way or another.

4. The video overlooks the well-known fact that
calendars have no *necessary* connection with orbital
periods, such as 360 days or 260 days. Calendars using
such "year" lengths do not attest to actual years of
those lengths. Banks use, or did use until recently, a
360 day calendar to simplify the calculation of
interest, for example. I debated David Fasold on this
issue in 1990 in Catastrophism and Ancient History

Rebuttal to #4:
The LE guerilla “overlooks the well-known fact that calendars have” a usual connection with orbitally determined seasonal periods. Are we to be impressed and won over because he debated someone on this issue?

5. The video tells the viewer: "EM is 10^39 more
powerful than gravity. . . . How can a weak force like
gravity dominate in a universe that crackles and hums
with electricity?"  Interestingly, the answer to this
question can be found in the article "Saxl's Pendulum"
in Aeon 2:2, which was edited by none other than Dave
Talbott!  The reason is because electricity comes in
opposite charges that are extremely difficult to keep
apart and which neutralize each other while gravity is
neutral and just gets greater and greater as a body's
mass increases via accretion. Thus, electricity
dominates interaction between charged particles while
gravity dominates interaction between massive bodies.
Similarly, Jim Warwick's result concerning the
comparison of magnetism and gravity in Velikovsky's
oft-cited example of a close binary magnetic star
where it turns out that gravity is a billion times
greater than magnetism was reported in Kronos X:3,

Rebuttal to #5:
Here again innuendo intrudes in a major way. Just because Talbott edited an article published in AEON V2:I2 years ago, doesn’t mean that he agrees with it now. And there is plenty of charge separation in the physical world, including space. Just look at the way the Deep Impact Mission projectile got zapped before it slammed into Comet Tempel 1. The claim that electricity dominates interaction between charged particles while gravity dominates interaction between massive bodies is a vacuous generalization. Something is wrong with the gravitational model on the galactic and intergalactic scale, otherwise the invention of “dark matter” and “dark energy” would have never passed the LOL test.

It's just one meshugga thing after another with Dave
Talbott.  He'll probably go to his grave like Kingsley
Amis's "Lucky Jim", pursuing pseudo-research, shedding
new light on a non-subject!  And keep in mind he is no
scholar when it comes to history considering in his
1996 video "Remembering the End of the World" he shows
a scene with the statues on Easter Island under the
"polar configuration" when Easter Island was not
colonized until about AD 1200 and the "polar
configuration" collapsed/disappeared 4000 years ago or
so. As Carl Sagan once said of Velikovsky's ideas,
those of Dave Talbott "do not survive close scrutiny"!

Well, surprise, surprise! More diatribe and polemic and personal attack. The scene of Easter Island was not meant to portray an overlap of time between the Moai and the proposed configuration in the ancient sky, but was just the product of low budget, poetic license. We grant that this minor criticism may be the most valid point raised in the whole document. Very damning though to a defender of the faith! But, where’s the beef?

Example #2

  Tony Peratt & Holocene Solar Activity: Constraints
            from [10]Be in Greenland Ice

     Modern science has learned to be open-minded
     to revolutionary suggestions, IF they are
     brought up with strong scientific or logical
     evidence. Reluctance to go along with Veli-
     kovsky's WORLDS IN COLLISION is, in my eyes,
     evidence not of stubborn dogmatism of 'official'
     science but of the physical and logical implaus-
     ibility of his theories.
        Rabinowitch to deGrazia, quoted in COSMIC
        HERETICS, p. 260.

Is not sentence #1 just an empty claim that begs the question? We understand some truth to claim #2, and that is why we are addressing the science with the Electric Universe principles.

     So many people think that an idea becomes true
     or probable by their very cleverness in devising
     it. They tell me that their private theory must
     be true because it sounds so right. They have
     missed what any good scientist knows in his
     bones: that fruitfulness in action, expressed as
     testability in practice, separates the good idea
     from the idle speculation. Most of these private
     theories stop where the scientist begins—the
     devising of a plan for action.
        Stephen J. Gould, "Soapy Sam'sLogic", Natural
        History, April 1986, p. 24.

The challengers to orthodoxy don’t really disagree with the above. Who would?

 Those who promote the "electric universe" seem to
think that their uninformed intuition coupled with a
kit-bag full of analogies between small-scale
laboratory phenomena and various other images, such as
petroglyphs, entitle their speculations to serious
consideration by mainstream science. They would do
well to ponder the two foregoing prefatory quotes.

Pure credibility assassination, no substance.

It took a long time for the connection between Sun and
Earth to be established and finally accepted by the
scientific community at large.  Despite many
compelling correlations between solar sunspot activity
and terrestrial transients, first recognized by
Richard Carrington in 1859 and later championed by
Kristian Birkeland, both scientists were opposed by
established prejudice; first by Lord Kelvin and later
by Sydney Chapman. The connection between Sun and
Earth was not finally proven until the data from
Explorer 12 was analyzed in 1974—two years after Dave
Talbott started the neo-Velikovskian revolution. For
those not familiar with Richard Carrington's
experience, the book by Stuart Clark, The Sun Kings:
The Unexpected Trajedy of Richard Carrington and the
Tale of How Modern Astronomy Began (Princeton U.P.,
2007) is must reading: "In September of 1859, the
entire Earth was engulfed in a gigantic cloud of
seething gas, and a blood-red aurora erupted across
the planet from the poles to the tropics. Around the
world, telegraph systems crashed, machines burst into
flames, and electric shocks rendered operators
unconscious. Compasses and other sensitive instruments
reeled as if struck by a massive magnetic fist. For
the first time, people began to suspect that the Earth
was not isolated from the rest of the universe.
However, nobody knew what could have released such
strange forces upon the Earth—nobody, that is, except
the amateur English astronomer Richard Carrington.

"In this riveting account, Stuart Clark tells for the
first time the full story behind Carrington's
observations of a mysterious explosion on the surface
of the Sun and how his brilliant insight—that the
Sun's magnetism directly influences the Earth—helped
to usher in the modern era of astronomy. Clark vividly
brings to life the scientists who roundly rejected the
significance of Carrington's discovery of solar
flares, as well as those who took up his struggle to
prove the notion that the Earth could be touched by
influences from space. Clark also reveals new details
about the sordid scandal that destroyed Carrington's
reputation and led him from the highest echelons of
science to the very lowest reaches of love, villainy,
and revenge.

"The Sun Kings transports us back to Victorian
England, into the very heart of the great
nineteenth-century scientific controversy about the
Sun's hidden influence over our planet."

Tony Peratt is a leading champion of the importance of
plasma in astronomy and physics whose work documenting
the global distribution of certain petroglyphs that
resemble plasma discharges seen in the laboratory
leads him to believe were inspired by our ancestors
witnessing stupendous aurora between 10,000 BC and
2,000 BC.  However, these particular aurora would only
happen IF the solar wind flux were ten to 100 times
greater than today.  And here's where Peratt's idee
fixe crashes into reality: there is NO EVIDENCE for
the former existence of such an enhanced solar wind
that is claimed to have existed in episodes lasting a
century or more. This enhanced solar wind would have
interfered with the production of [10]Be and [14]C,
greatly reducing its abundance. A recent paper
discusses this relationship between Holocene solar
activity and [10]Be abundance in the Greenland ice:

This is simply a mischaracterization of Peratt’s proposals, and as such is a straw man. What the LE guerilla is asking the reader to do is to reject the propositions on the basis of incompatibility with the current structure and condition of the earths electrical field and “magnetosphere”. A big part of what is being proposed is that the conditions were dramatically different. Nothing that is said above is relevant.

doi:10.1029/2005JA011500, 2006

Large variations in Holocene solar activity:
Constraints from 10Be in the Greenland Ice Core
Project ice core

Maura Vonmoos, Swiss Federal Institute of
Environmental Science and Technology, Dübendorf,

Jürg Beer, Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental
Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland

Raimund Muscheler, Climate and Radiation Branch, NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

Cosmogenic radionuclides extracted from ice cores hold
a unique potential for reconstructing past solar
activity changes beyond the direct instrumental
period. Taking the geomagnetic modulation into
account, the solar activity in terms of the
heliospheric modulation function can quantitatively be
reconstructed in high resolution throughout the
Holocene. For this period our results reveal changes
in heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays
significantly larger than the variations reconstructed
on the basis of neutron monitor measurements of
galactic cosmic rays for the last 50 years. Moreover,
the 10Be data from the Greenland Ice Core Project ice
core as well as 14C support a high current solar
activity. However, although the reconstruction of
solar activity on long timescales is difficult, our
result suggests that the modern activity state of the
Sun is not that exceptional regarding the entire
Holocene. This extended solar activity record provides
the basis for further detailed investigations on solar
and cosmic ray physics, as well as on solar forcing of
the Earth's climate whose importance is suggested by
increasing paleoclimatic evidences.

Received 26 October 2005; accepted 17 July 2006;
published 12 October 2006.

Keywords: cosmic rays; cosmogenic radionuclides; solar

I have contacted one of the authors of this paper who
confirms my suspicion that IF the solar wind flux had
been ten to 100 times greater than now for at least a
century, as Peratt believes, THEN such an increase
would have affected the production of [10]Be and
[14]C, whose effect on [10]Be would be seen in the
profile for [10]Be concentration in the Greenland ice.
 No such effect is seen. 

Peratt has been very diligent in documenting the
provenances of petroglyphs and doing laboratory
simulations, but he has not shown any interest, so far
as I am aware, of testing his ideas about solar wind
flux variation against the physical record in the
Greenland ice and other relevant proxy records, such
as tree rings which preserve the [14]C record.

All of the above is simply irrelevant, and the author should be aware of the multiple and unwarranted assumptions that underlie C-14 dating and the extensive work that shows it is generally unreliable and invalid.

Then, too, considering that all archaeoastronomers
understand that observers in the northern hemisphere
cannot see the stars in the southern sky and at the
South Pole (n.b.: Hipparchus, observing from Rhodes,
could not see any stars further south than about 5
degrees below the equator), how come Peratt claims
that observers in high northern latitudes, where the
"squatting stick man" petroglyphs are found in
positions suggesting a viewing to the south, were able
to see the stupendous aurora impinging on the south
magnetic pole?

More ignorance or deviousness. Peratt’s model posits an extensive plasma discharge that angled away from the southern impingement, and had changing highlights with the sun shining on it. And with the rotation of the earth, this was visible to almost everyone with a southern view that was not blocked by a hill, ridge or mountain. Again, this was not just a “stupendous aurora”. If you want to be taken seriously as a challenger of a model, you should at least familiarize yourself with its basic tenets.

There are other problems attending Peratt's
revolutionary hypothesis, such as the petroglyphs
being found on islands in the Pacific that were not
inhabited until many thousands of years after Peratt
claims the enhanced solar wind ceased AND the aurora
extending out from the south pole farther than the
Earth-Moon distance when the magnetosphere is only
about 1/10 that thickness now and would have been
compressed to an even smaller thickness when the solar
wind flux was ten to 100 greater than now.  But NONE
of the "explorers" that Dave has recruited into his
movement seems to have been bothered by such
inconsistencies. And Peratt, to judge from his recent
publications, does not seem to have considered them,
either. Shame, shame, shame. Where is Peratt's "plan
for action" that S.J. Gould admonished be formulated
by revolutionary thinkers?

Whether or not these unidentified islands were inhabited or not is probably up for disagreement, but the reference to the “enhanced solar wind” has nothing to do with the model. And the model has nothing to do with the structure and extent of the current magnetosphere. And more “shameless” denigration.

IF the petroglyphs that fascinate Peratt and his
fellow "cosmic electricians" at kronia.com and
thunderbolts.info and mythopedia.info were really
motivated by something seen in the sky, then they
might do well to find another phenomenon such as the
effects of Earth's episodic, energetic interaction
with the Taurid-Encke complex all during the Holocene,
as Victor Clube, Bill Napier, Mike Baillie, Moe
Mandelkehr and others have been elucidating for the
past 28 years. Yeah, that's the ticket!  Is Bruce
Mainwaring listening?

The petroglyphs that fascinate Peratt reflect different identifiable stages in the plasma discharge breakdown instabilities for which Peratt is the recognized studied expert. There is no need to appeal to whatever model is being posited by the listed people.

Cheers,  Leroy Ellenberger

On the above page, the LE guerilla has this quote:

" Over the past four years I have come to appreciate that, even if Velikovsky were right, there are good physical reasons why astronomers and other scientists have opposed him so tenaciously.”

The challengers to orthodoxy in these arenas, proponents of planetary catastrophism, acknowledge the above, given that the theorists have been fixated on a gravity-only (now they have incorporated a little magnetism) astrophysics and orbital dynamics, and have indulged in inventing sensational constructs such as dark matter and energy to make it all work. Under such constraints, the posited solar system rearrangements in past times would be scientifically impossible. But not if the planets and sun are highly charged and electrical forces and plasma behavior are given play.

See also: A Rebuttal to "Electric Sky Debunked" Part 1
                  Scientistic Propaganda
                  Disingenuous Argument Techniques

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