From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: 9'th Category of Evidence / Saturn Myth details
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:39:26 GMT

In article <2841@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}To the best of my understanding at least, the
}picture I shall try to present here is not precisely known in great
}detail.
This is a true statement.

}Nonetheless, at this point in time, a general outline is
}visible, the major elements OF the picture are clear, enough of the
}picture IS visible for a viewer to grasp the basic concepts, and at
}least one good book has been published (Talbott's "The Saturn Myth").
}The "Saturn Myth", Doubleday 1980, although out of print at present,
}will hopefully be printed again in the near future.  The scientific
}heresy represented by all of this is not going to fold up and die any
}time soon.  

Oh yes.  Let's check this book you refer to.  I happened to find one
through interlibrary loan.


The Saturn Myth
Talbott, David N
Copyright 1980
Doubleday & Company, Inc
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 76-51986


Perhaps Ted can help explain:
 
In (The Saturn Myth) David N. Talbott says:
}The planet Saturn today is recognizable only to those who know where to look 
}for it.  But a few thousand years ago Saturn  dominated the Earth as a sun,
} presiding over a universal Golden Age.
[page 1]

	I wanted to get the central thesis stated.  Fortunately, Talbott  did 
this as the very first sentence in the body of his book.  Unfortunately, he did
not give the vaguest hint as to how something as delicate as a habitable planet
either got there, or how it left without destroying the system in the process.
It would have been big, though.  At that distance the sun would be .0034
degrees across (1/100 that from Earth, about) and Saturn (from Roche's
limit distance) 23 degrees across.  big.

}Throughout Saturn's reign this sun-planet remained fixed at the North celestial
} pole.
[page 37]

	Again, I wanted to get another of his central points unambigiously 
stated.  Again, fortunately he did this.  Again, unfortunately, he gave 
absolutely no hint as to HOW this was suppose to have been done.  From the
description, it appears to be the case that he supposes that the Earth orbitted
Saturn with the axis of the rotation which extends through the poles was
orientated at a radial of the orbit, with Saturn taking the central position
as the primary "above" the North pole.  This is not a physically possible
orbit.  As the mass of the Earth rotates, any force applied would cause
the movement to result at right angles to the force applied.  Please conduct
an experiment yourself with a gyroscope to confirm this.  Hence, any force
applied radially would result, not in the reorientation of the Earth's axis
TOWARDS the central body, but would result in precession at 90 degrees.  
Even allowing this magical force to maintain the alignment, this would result
in two complete reversals of the angular momentum and rotational energy of
the Earth every orbit.  From the initial state, the axis of rotation would have
to change 180 degrees in 1/2 of an orbit, so that the same pole would still
be pointed at the central body.  This would require an amount of energy 
sufficient to "spin up" the Earth four times every orbit.


} So long as the solar orb was visible, the fiery globe of Saturn remained
} subdued, unable to compete with the sheer light of the former body.  But
} once the solar orb sank beneath the horizon, Saturn and its circle of
} secondary lights acquired a terrifying radiance.
[ page 41]

	What we see here is that the light visible from Saturn was less than
that visible from the sun.  This does not require ANY assumptions other
than the reporter could see.  The report gave the comparison.  This directly 
implies a number of things:

Photobiological studies show that the lower limit of illumination for 
photosynthesis is approximately 0.02 lumens per square centimeter.  Without
this minimum level, there would be insufficient ambient light for 
photosynthesis to proceed and provide a breathable atmosphere.  The solar 
flux at Saturn's current orbit is approximately .165 lumens per square 
centimeter.  Hence, photosynthesis is possible.  Since there is NO data
on either saturn moving, nor a significant change in the solar output,
this is a not unreasonable extrapolation for the flux at the time.

A planet is habitable due to temperature considerations if it has a mean annual
temperature over 32 degrees Fahrenheit with a minimum illumination of 
approximately .65 times Earth normal.  In our solar system, this provides a
maximum distance from sol of 1.24 AU.  Since Earth at the distance of Saturn
would receive .011 times that at its present orbit, it would require that
49 times as much energy be received from non-solar sources as from sol.  Yet,
Saturn provides less illumination than sol, not 49 times as much.  The planet,
as described, would be frozen.  As a current comparison, Titan is one of
the moons of Saturn.  It is there now.  It has an atmosphere made up mostly
of nitrogen (ours in mostly nitrogen).  Its atmosphere is approximately
4.6 times denser than Earths (more "blanket").  Its surface is -292 degrees
fahrenheit.

	Now, if we ignore what Talbott claimed (which does not appear to be
a bad idea) and make Saturn a very cool star of 3000K (not like the 6000 K 
of a "green hot" star) at that range we get:

T^4 = 5500^4 * 0.0034 + 3000^4 * 560 + 3^4 *40,691
      ---------------------------------------------
           41,252

T = 1024K

Which would sorta cook things...
However, since there is no way that an object the mass of Saturn now could
light, nor a way that excess mass could be removed without destroying the
ice rings (and the moons around it - like Earth is claimed) we don't have to
worry about this possibility.


}The sign of the enclosed sun portrays a circle of secondary lights revolving 
} around the stationary god and forming Saturn's Cosmos
[page 71]

	He then continues to explain that this "cosmos" is Saturn's ring system.
This provides two pieces of information concerning the orbit:

1. It had to be a polar orbit around Saturn.  The only two places from which
the entire ring might be visible is "above" the axis of Saturn.  Hence,
the orbit had to pass through at least one of these points.  Note that
the rings are not FULLY visible, so the various cresents he proposes are
also possible.  But it would have to be ALL of them, not just some.
Note from his illustrations that the rings were obscured by the planet.
Hence, illumination of the rings is not a constraint but line-of-sight is.


2. It provides a minimum range to Saturn.  Since he places great stress on
the egyptian accounts, the entire system would have had to be visible from
Egypt.  NONE of the stationary planet or its ring system could be below the
horizon.  To calculate from the northern reach of egypt (where most
of his accounts take place) where the sphere alone is visible, the
distance would be about 108,000 kilometers.  To include the ring structure
you need to back off to over 237,000 kilometers.  Since the Roche's
limit is around 71,000 kilometers, it appears that Saturn (with or
without including its rings) can be viewed on the horizon from some, but not
all, locations he gives.
The period of Tethys (the closest large moon of Saturn) is less than
two days.  This safe orbit might be combined with the energy magically used 
to maintain the radially orientated orbit to calculate the necessary energy 
influx applied as torque .This energy would be would be over 3.6*10^44 ergs
per year.  The current terrestrial annual seismic energy release is 
5*10^24 ergs.  It does not sound much like a golden age since it would
be getting 70000000000000000000 times as much energy annually as torque
as the Earth expends in earthquakes.  If you want it REALLY tough, close
to the Roche limit.  There the orbital period is 3.8 hours.  The same
amount of energy would have to be applied as torque in 7.2*10^-15 seconds
as Earth expends on earthquakes in a year.

}From Saturn, the central sun, flowed four primary paths of light.
[page 122]

	It would have been nice if Talbott gave any physical explaination
for this phonomena, which is unobserved today.  We've seen Saturn up
close.  There is no such thing there.

}To the images of the enclosed sun and enclosed sun-cross ancient myths add
} the cosmic mountain - a column of light rising along the world axis and visually
}appearing to hold aloft the great god's home.
[page 172]

	Chapter 8 is entirely concerned with this "cosmic mountain", which is
claimed to be a light extending from Saturn to the north pole.  No physical
process is given to account for such a phenomena, but that is not the only flaw.
To be visible UNDER Saturn, the entire globe would have to be above the
visible horizon.  He refers to this "mountain", and other features,
where they simply could not bee seen.  See below.

	Also to note - the more "under" Saturn the observer, the wetter.
The tidal bulge of the oceans would be "locked" under Saturn, like
it is now under the moon.  Any observer would get washed away...  Note
that water flows easier than crustal plates (Ted would have us believe
that plates don't slide at all) and the equipotential gravitational
surface would flood any land under it.

}the realization that the cresent with which ancient ritual deals is
}inseparable from the band of the enclosed sun
[229]

	Chapter 9 attempts to link the occurrance of a cresent with the
rings of Saturn.  He spins quite a tale.  Unfortunately for his premise,
he uses samples from peru and argentinia (page 237) which are south of
the equator.  Even if Saturn were "Above" the north pole, no matter HOW
close or far away, the entire sphere, let alone anything "below" it, would
not be visible.  So by Talbott's own claim on the distribution of the
event, it is shown to be false.  If you care to postulate that the
symbols were imported from elsewhere (as Ted tried) that would invalidate
the distribution claim that Talbott made.

	Interestingly enough, there is nothing in this book about gravitational
effects.

Also interesting, is that there is no way proposed to magically transport
the Earth AWAY from this situation without destroying it.  For instance,
even if the temperature were magically maintained while in Saturn's orbit, 
the trip to its current position would be too cold.  And if whatever magic
that were preventing it from being destroyed by the tremendous torques
were removed during the trip, the energy released during the escape/transit
would demolish it.  Even Velikovsky noticed that close encounters heat
planetary bodies - something that Talbott apparently missed...  Nor did
Talbott even make the faintest hint that SATURN had been the one that moved.

Newsgroups: talk.origins