Velikovsky and EU

27 Oct 2017

Tim Cullen on Velikovsky. One to read. Go to https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/the-atomic-comet-electric-epi... ... it looks like this is the last one on this subject (comets) and in this post he responds to somebody who broached the subject of the Electric Universe - no doubt in relation to electric comets. The fact that every comet over the last ten years has failed to live up to the billing by EU is no matter - or so it would seem. Apparently, somebody got in touch with Cullen a short while ago and reminded him that Velikovsky gave us the Electric Universe model - but did he? Cullen's reply (and he has at various times been charitable on Velikovsky) is that Velikovsky did not write about the electric universe. He wrote about gravity being an electromagnetic phenomenon (see www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm ). He says Velikovsky simply resurrected and recycled old ideas for a new generation. Is that fair? Cullen then goes on to cite various other people that suspected electricity was involved in the behaviour of comets - including Olbers and Bessel, and John Herschel. This is interesting as the Thunderbolts blog actually had two posts listing various scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries that were of the same opinion, and one of those was Herschel. Velikovsky may have modified his views somewhat at a later stage in his life but Cullen does seem to have a point. EU is the product of Velikovsky's fan club - his supporters. It relies on reinterpreting certain myths and assuming thunderbolts rained down on earth rather than, shall we say, meteors. It is a theory. A quite good theory. Not sure that it is correct in detail.

Cullen goes on to bite back a bit on the fellow that addressed him by saying that the EU is a misleading but successful marketing ploy. It over emphasises electricity at the expense of magnetism and fluid dynamics. He says it is useful to have a look at the electro-magnetic moon, it being our closest neighbour. Fluid dynamics suggests the solar wind propels the moon and the earth along their orbital paths around the Sun whilst imparting rotational spin via the Magnus Effect - which statement refers the reader back to one of his earlier posts, the clockwork moon - at https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/the-clockwork-moon/ ... which may or may not be relevant. The characteristic slow rocking back and forth of the moon suggests magnetism may be a factor influencing the moon's visible struggle to keep one hemisphere facing the Earth. However, this simple picture is only approximately true as over time slightly more than half of the moon's surface is seen from Earth due to libration (the slow rocking back and forth motion). He then brings in microgravity and the idea of weightlessness as the motion of micro-masses are influenced by micro-forces, before turning to Newton. The total magnetic field strength of the moon suggests the Far Side of the moon may be magnetically repelled by the Earth. At this point he turns to Edmund Halley who realised the Earth has two magnetic poles on the surface - plus two magnetic poles on an inner sphere at a depth of around 800km. Halley noticed the pattern of Earth's magnetism was creeping towards the west at a pace that would complete a full circuit in a couple of thousand years. To explain this Halley surmised the Earth had two north and two south magnetic poles. By adjusting the slow westerly rotation of the inner sphere he could reproduce observed variations to a certain extent - but not entirely (JB Zirker, The Magnetic Universe, 2009). See also https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/geomagnetism-salvaging-the-wr... ... and https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/flipping-geology-exothermic-p... ...which leads him to say these two pieces of the puzzle together yield some interesting results, i) a quadrupole earth attracts the moon at apogee but repels the moon at perigree, ii) the weightless moon repeatedly bounces off finite magnetic boundaries, iii) but average distance may never actually  be observed as the weightless moon has a propensity to overshoot and undershoot the average, and iv) it can also be argued the quadrupole weightless earth is attracted towards the Sun at aphelion but repelled at perihelion, which would mean the weightless earth and moon repeatedly bounce off finite magnetic boundaries, while in v) the rotation of the weightless moon is dominated by the earth magnetically repulsing the Far Side of the moon, and vi) the moon continues to spin away from the earth, very slowly, at the speed fingernails grow. He then says one analogy might be that a clockwork mechanism with magnetohydrodynamic cogs that are (ultimately) powered by atomic energy - but as ever the independent observer is encouraged to turn over the evidence in their own minds. I'm quite sure the EU people will have a suitable reposte - and SIS members too.