$Revision: 1.14 $
-- The Other Group --
the success and failure of arguments
countering alternative cosmologies
A Leaked Email
It's an email I meant to delete or save for some other time, but it went out instead -- to half the Ellenberger list. I had reduced the list because Pine could not handle all the names without screwing up. Leroy was not on the list.
I got a few (two) responses, mostly in the form of, "who are you?" That also indicated how effective the list is.
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:42:47 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Grubaugh model and Space Age Myths
ellenberger - list
I thought I would reply to your email, with a few comments, specifically to (1) the Grumbaugh Magnetic Polar Model, (2) the quoted Space Age myths by Cohen, and (3) the MRI lethal dose.
(1) Grumbaugh Magnetic Polar Model
Has this email been in your outbox for 13 years? The Grumbaugh model dates from 1994. And Gumbaugh is 85 by now?
But I agree, planetary magnetism would never do. Venus and Mars have no magnetic field. What keeps them from "crashing into each other" is the repulsive electrical field -- experienced as soon as the planet entered the plasmoid of Saturn.
The 'polar model' has changed since the late 1990s. No longer are planets skewered on a shishkabob placed flat and pointing toward the Sun. The skewer is now orthogonal to the ecliptic. The planets are stacked one above the other, on equal orbits about the Sun. This was expounded by Talbott and Thornhill in a conference in 2001. A much easier and logical configuration.
The old order of Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Earth is incorrect. Jupiter certainly was not part of the stack. Venus also was not part of the coaxial alignment. It simply would not make sense to have Venus sub-polar to Saturn. To this point there is probably agreement today.
Since I am nearing completion on my collation of all the various loose pieces of the Saturnian configuration, I'll suggest that in actuality the stack consisted of Uranus, Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth.
[In November 2009 I added Mercury to the stack, BTW.]
The upper two planets were probably separated 3/4 to one million miles from each other and Saturn. This can be calculated from present orbital inclinations. Venus was probably in synchronous orbit around Neptune, or the mass center of the stack, well outside of the equatorial rings of Saturn, and perhaps a million miles 'above' them.
Earth may have been 3 million miles below Saturn in 3147 BC. From this you can now calculate the gravitational attraction due to Saturn and the Titans, set this equal to a like electrical repulsion due to Saturn, and solve for the coulomb charge of Saturn.
In 3147 BC this configuration met up with Jupiter at about 0.7 AU. When, at maybe 3 million miles separation, the plasmoids of Jupiter and Saturn make contact, all hell broke loose. Earth, Mars, and Venus were at the same instant locked out from the reformed plasmoid, and never felt a thing, falling into inner orbits. It is simple and straight forward.
(2) the quoted Space Age myths by Cohen
I find this very interesting, and might use it to introduce a planned topic on 'disproof' -- what it takes to disprove my various postulates at [http://saturniancosmology.org].
What is interesting about the quoted material is that is offers the reactions -- "he turns away", "he questions your sources", "he fails to see your point" -- but does not address the causes for these reactions.
These are also the reponses you get when you try to talk to other people about religion, politics, or sex. The supposed facts and opinions on these topics are learned -- as dogma -- at an age before people have the ability to reason things out, before they are able to step through alternatives in their mind, and make selections based on common sense, other experiences, and a knowledge of the world and its functioning. The "age of reason" is the age of eight.
But 'facts' learned from authority figures obviously extends well beyond the age of eight. At one time (13 Jul 94), in another diatribe, you quoted Roger Jones and David Leveson as.."The acid test of any scientific theory is, first and foremost, its agreement with the FACTS of the physical world. It is empiricism, not aesthetics, that is the backbone of science."
"In scientific as opposed to pseudo-scientific polemic, evidence has priority over hypothesis. That is, hypothesis must conform to evidence, not evidence to hypothesis."
Now consider the Big Bang, where evidence is consistently conformed to theory, where there is a great deal of philosophical aesthetics, but there are no facts. But if you are on a PhD track in physics, and you need to pass tests and need to make choices about a thesis, you will accept the authority of those who govern the process.."A nonbeliever, I felt guilty in the midst of all those believers. And since it seemed to me that they were in the right, I decided to believe, as you might decided to take an asprin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco "Foucault's Pendulum" (1988)
The reactions offered by Cohen are entirely reversable. The frustrations the Orthodox have with the Radicals, are entirely the same frustrations the Radicals have with the Orthodox. They express the impossibility of a dialog between camps which see the world in completely different terms. Two dogmas, no talk.
Dogma is learned facts (including the 'reasoning' behind them) which have no basis in the active inquiring imagination of the holder of the dogma. It is passed-on information which has been absorbed from authority. So when you quote additionally from Cohen.."We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defense with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks."
What self-serving pomposity; I want to barf. It's the Orthodox Science Police Authority speaking.
Scientists are being turned into mandarins and missionaries. One thing you could do, Leroy, is to stop denigrating people for not having a degree in physics or astronomy. It will hurt your cause to continue to do so, because the opinions of academics will be the first to be dismissed. You should welcome radical practicioners from diverse non-academic backgrounds, they are more likely able to think. The whole edifice of 19th century archeology is due to rank amateurs, just like chemistry in the previous century.
(3) You write.."Would it not be prudent to conclude from this FACT that the "polar configuration" never existed?"
I should ask, What FACT? But it could just as well have been suggested that the polar configuration was (might have been) held together with rubber bands and thumbtacks. It was a model under discussion, and lethal MRI doses tell you nothing about the model except to look elsewhere for the mechanics.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Leroy Ellenberger wrote:Dear Bob,
Since you have not so far requested a faxed copy of "astronomer Tom Van Flandern"'s [to quote Davey in "Remembering the End of the World"] 17 Dec 1994 "Evaluation of Grubaugh model", I must assume that it is most likely that you probably still have a copy and, seeing nothing to criticize in it, you have neither praised it nor damned it. However, there IS still a probability that you have never seen it; in which case your lack of curiosity is most strange.
Keep in mind the observation set forth by Daniel Cohen in his 1967 Myths of the Space Age: "Once a person really commits himself to an idea, no matter how silly, he often places himself beyond the reach of argument. He quickly develops a real stake in his belief, and to give it up would represent a blow to his whole self-concept. Nor is he forced into social isolation; he can usually find an entire community of fellow believers to support him. A report on a study of belief conducted by the University of Minnesota Laboratory for Research in Social Relations (_When Prophesy Fails_, University of Minnesota Press, 1956) put it this way: 'A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. . . . We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defense with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.'" (p. 3)
So, Bob, which is it with you? Are you the rational, objective evaluator of data that your career in applied mathematics would dispose you? Or, are you so committed to the merits of Davey's "Saturn Myth" delusion that you have become "a man with a conviction" immune to the call of reason? Surely you appreciate the FACT that the magnetic field strengths needed to hold the "polar configuration" together, as suggested by Bob Grubaugh and later elaborated by "physicist Bob Driscoll" [again to quote Davey in "Remembering..."], are many orders of magnitude greater than used in medical MRI machines, and would have been LETHAL, as was explained on talk.origins in May 1994. Would it not be prudent to conclude from this FACT that the "polar configuration" never existed?
So, I ask again: 1) Do you want me to fax you a copy of Van Flandern's 17 Dec 1994 post to talk.origins?
2) Have you ever viewed the "documentary" "Remembering the End of the World"? If so, did you find it convincing, esp. the computer animation (NOT numerical simulation) of the motion of the co-linear "stack" of the five planets: Jup, Sat, Ven, Mars, Earth? And, hey, where was the Moon, absent from "Remembering..." during all this planetary "dancing"? Hmmm.
3) What is the value of the ratio $B/$S, where $B is the appearance fee Davey pays you and $S is the appearance fee Davey paid to Z. Sitchin in 1997, which equals $12k?
Cheers, Leroy "Per Veritatem Vis"
URL of this page: http://othergroup.net/leaked.php
This page last updated: Thursday, January 15th, 2015
Feel free to email me with any comments or corrections.
jno (at) othergroup (dot) net
I'll be glad to add relevant comments or essays
Copyright © 2010 - 2017 Jno Cook
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is granted,
provided full credit is given.