Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,102 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,550,226
Pageviews Today: 2,252,898Threads Today: 614Posts Today: 12,529
06:18 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Saturn Theory-ancient history

 
watchone
User ID: 62203
United States
03/20/2010 06:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Saturn Theory-ancient history
The Saturn Theory
(also: Saturn Model, Saturn Myth, Saturn Configuration)
is the idea based on comparative mythology, that the Earth was once in closer proximity, or even a satellite of the planet Saturn, which appeared like a sun. It has received criticisms on both mythological and physical grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------
Taken from [link to www.velikovsky.info]
---------------------------------------------------------
Earth as a satellite of Saturn


Several authors have independently suggested that mythological sources and ancient texts, lead to the conclusion that the Earth was once a moon of the planet Saturn:

Dwardu Cardona writes:[7]

"Independent of Velikovsky, but basing their work on his, Harold Tresman and Bernard Newgrosh (writing under the name of Brendan O'Gheoghan), also came to the conclusion that Earth must have once been a satellite of Saturn,(3)[8] a topic to which Tresman has more recently returned.(4)[9] Combining Velikovsky's postulate with that of David Talbott and others, Frederick Hall embraced the same idea, presenting it in a speculative scenario concerning the history of the Solar System.(5)[10]"

Alfred de Grazia notes:

"The year 1977 marked the beginning of quantavolutionary publications about Saturn. Three articles appeared, written by David Talbott,[11] by Dwardu Cardona,[12][13] and jointly by Harold Tresman and B. O'Gheoghan.[8] A few months later, Velikovsky, who had inspired the studies in each case, without participating in them released a fragment of his manuscripts on Saturn. [..] Saturn was a second sun, shining by day and night upon Earth. "[14]

For example:

* (1884) Oskar Reichenbach is recalled by Dwardu Cardona:

"Actually, a similar, if more bizarre, idea that proposes the Earth to be "an offspring of Saturn" was aired as long ago as 1884 by Oskar Reichenbach(2) as part of a theory purporting to prove that land masses on Earth have rifted and moved northward. Thus, as wrong as he might have been, and I am not here concerned with defending Reichenbach, his ideas preceded the similar ones of Alfred Wegener by some 33 years"[7][15]

* (1974) Lynn E. Rose writes:

"Still others may suppose that the pre-Flood "year" was indeed the period of Earth's revolution, but that Earth was revolving around some body other than the Sun (7)"[16]

* (1977) Harold Tresman and Bernard Newgrosh (writing as B. O'Gheoghan) wrote:

" What must have been the relationship between the Earth and this great body - proto-Saturn? There are two answers we consider. The first is that the Earth was indeed nearer to this body, but on an orbit about the Sun independent of the great body, thus there would be times when the aspect of the proto-Saturn body would be large. However, there would also be times when its aspect would be quite small, as at present. Neither does this explanation account for some of the satellitic descriptions. The alternative proposal is startling. It is that at one time the Earth orbited as a satellite of proto-Saturn"[8]

* (1977) Ralph E. Juergens wrote:

"Velkovsky has stated that Saturn was disrupted in a near-collision with Jupiter. Knowing little or nothing of the details, I can most easily imagine such an encounter in terms of a Saturnian planetary system, which included the Earth, being invaded, dismembered, and captured by an interloping system of relative giants consisting essentially of the present Sun and Jupiter (if nothing else, the axial inclinations of Jupiter and its offspring, Venus, argue for an ancestral relationship between Jupiter and the Sun). Now, even though Velikovsky points out that Saturn was once a much more massive body than it is today, it is hard to imagine that it could have been massive enough to be a star in the context of the thermonuclear theory of stellar energy. If, however, it was an electrically fuelled star, its initial stellar state and its sudden demise seem readily explainable."[17]





GLP