003 EU Meetup September 11, 2017

Jean, Jim and Juan,

Great conversation again last week.

Just want to again extend the invitation for the meeting tomorrow.

Skype meetup on

Monday: September 11, 2017 at

UTC-3      8:00pm

Mountain  5:00pm

PST          4:00pm

I have some scratch notes and some interesting back and forths from last week:

Here are notes with some links for reference and perusal 🙂


the Kybalion


7 principles from which the universe works

all is one

equivalence – as above so below


Ebner Effect PhenoType – 1000 volts per centemeter




Jim Murray Paul Babcock



tesla = provide testimony explain – magnifying effective power – nested resonances – Reactive Watts – Lent to the system – Jim Murray and Paul Babcock



Gods Fire

Moses and the

Management of Exodus


Alfred de Grazia






Irving Wolf – 1994 Velacofski symposium



Book Limitation of Thinking – Andy Fitz – EU Duard – Breakout Adam Stewart –

Jadowsky = Row Boat – Peculiar – Done Research –

extinctions Nemesis Star – 26,000 — Up and Down throught the plane of the galaxy – Longer Term Schedule – Catastrophic – Crunden – Long Term Cycles Local Circuitry;

Everything Duardo – Judeo Christian – Catholic Replacement – Moluch – Elohim – Central Chimney – Sheldrake ESP – Andrew Edwins – Clarence King – USGS – Catastrophist

Miles Hutton – Uniformitarian. Louise Agascy… Races created separately. Steven J Gould writer evolution – eugenics –



There was some back and forth discussions

mainstream error in electrodynamics:

From Juan:

The Universe is an intrinsically unified physically extended compressible material substrate, a contiguum with no empty spaces anywhere. The Universe is not “filled with” matter, it is matter and nothing else. You, me and all things are just finite modifications formed from and embedded in such an infinite substance. Temporary waves in the eternal Ocean.

Principles of Light and Color:


from 1878 Edwin D. Babbit

Eric Dollard mentioned it in this interview:


Looking forward to the meeting.



ps: Thought this atomic idea had some helices within helices resonances:

Any topics you’d like to cover I can collate so we can reference them during the meeting.

Have a great Sunday.



David W. Johnson <dj@argos.vu>

AttachmentsSep 12

to Jim

That’s funny,

I was perusing “God’s Fire” this morning…


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

I’ve been reading again “God Star”, and Dwardu definitely had the correlation right, when talking of the sun’s position relative to Taurus and the Pleiades,  as being used to mark calendars in ancient times. This is still a tool used by some cultures to mark calendars (the position of the sun relative to the constelation).  Then he says also very correctly, “If this turns out to be correct, the association of the Pleiades with this planetary deity requires an explanation since this constellation has no observable connection with the planet Saturn”.
   So, we have records from ancient times that used the sun in Taurus to mark the calendar, we have cultures in modern times that do the same, and a seeming continuous use in between.  Note of course that with precession, the sun’s position drifts over time. Yet when we see a culture that depicts the sun between the horns of the bull, and can trace that culture back to a time when sure enough, that postion of the sun (that’s our current sun to be sure!) between the horns does match their “time”, we still are going to make this about Saturn?  
    Again, if this bull with star/planet between its horns came down to us without context, we could make it about Saturn, or anything we wanted.  But the context has always been the same. Ancient peoples as far back as we can trace, (and some still now), use the sun’s position relative to the constellation, to distinguish not only where they are in the year, but where their year is in time compared to other years.  
   Once again, I’m not denying the polar configuration, or Saturn’s position in it. Just that not ALL the mythology handed down to us comes from this one time, or this one event.  Basically, all cultures around the world, were aware of precession, and that the sun’s position relative to background constellations was the only way to keep track of longer term cycles. This was common knowledge around the world until the idea was accepted that the world was created  mere thousands of years ago.  No reason to track where the sun is in the precessional cycle, if the whole universe was not around long enough for even half of one cycle.      
rom: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>
To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
Cc: “dj@argos.vu” <dj@argos.vu>; jhafner <jhafner@swcp.com>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Taurus History

Hi Jim and all!

That Taurus was first identified as the Bull of Heaven (and not the other way around!) in “Babylonian times” could very well be the case, at least in principle. This doesn’t mean that the Bull of Heaven global archetype was generated at such times, of course.

Actually, all of the archetypes (the seemingly outrageous global agreements) are clearly prehistoric, i.e. they reflect memorialized events before the rise of (at least what we understand to be) the first civilizations like the Babylonians. And the Bull of Heaven is one of these archetypes of course, so this would be consistent with the position of all the mytho-historical scholars that argue that the associations of archetypes with constellations came after the proto-planetary deities left the main stage (so to speak).
That is, the Bull of Heaven archetype, the Sun God archetype and the intimate connection between these two archetypes were all generated before the association to constellations, an association that absolutely did happen but after the original stimulus (the theater in the sky) was not longer there. Or so is the argument.

Again, in order to reconstruct what actually happened we need very reliable data. Nothing less than that will suffice. In order to extract reliable data from obviously unreliable witnesses, we may learn from forensics the golden rule of prehistorical reconstruction:

“All isolated ancient sources are absolutely unreliable by themselves. Reliable conclusions can only arise from a detailed convergence of global testimony that would otherwise be impossible to exist in the absence of a shared extraordinary natural experience”. 
The reliable data points that any reasonably scientific reconstruction must include are the “archetypes”, the very detailed yet completely outrageous global patterns. There are hundreds of archetypes, most of them identified by many “mainstream” scholars before Velikovsky and his followers, and not a single of those patterns are understandable in terms of our current skies. Not one of them. Yet each and every one must have an explanation.

A few of the mysterious global archetypes are:
1) The Bull of Heaven
2) The God / Goddess with Outstretched Arms
3) Twin Peaks of the World
4) The Cosmic Pillar
5) The Cosmic Mountain
6) The Ship of Heaven
7) The Ship of Day and Night
8) The Inverted Ship of Night
9) The Heavenly Twins
10) The Separation of the Heaven and Earth
11) The “Beginning” of Time

There are many many other global patterns, like the Serpent / Dragon, the Mother Goddess, the Warrior / Hero, each of the distinct characteristics of the Warrior Hero (the swelling god, god of the underworld, the scarred god, the pupil of the eye), etc.
All of these global agreements must be data points in any scientific reconstruction worth their salt. It is the reliable mytho-historical evidence that absolutely makes no sense, but must make sense.
But the most fascinating thing is that all these data points are interconnected! The ancient sources demonstrate that the bull of heaven is inseparably connected to the outstretched arms, the twin peaks of the world, the cosmic pillar, etc.
In my humble opinion, the unparalleled strength of Dave’s Talbott (and others) argument is that if you postulate just one particular seemingly outrageous configuration in the sky, it seems that you can deduce or “retrodict” most if not all of these global patterns! Even more, many of the interconnections between the different archetypes seem to make immediate sense just by following the physical demands of the hypothesis.

To see how the eleven archetypes that I mentioned above are retrodicted from the so-called “polar configuration”, and more importantly, to see how they interconnect, you can review Discourses of an Alien Sky, from #11 to #23. Here is my youtube playlist, which I actually recommend watching in full:


Of course, the video is just a quick glimpse of the vast library of mytho-historical-symbolical evidence available. If any anyone wants to get serious, there are voluminous publications discussing this with much greater detail.
So we have this PC idea that seemingly explains very simply a big part of the hundreds of universal agreements between the ancient cultures and is seemingly supported by increasing amounts of evidence from the hard sciences, like for example what I mentioned today regarding Venus, Mars, comets being pieces of planets excavated by the “thunderbolts of the gods”, etc.
If you are challenging the proto-planetary basis of the reconstruction (for example, when claiming that The Bull of Heaven archetype has nothing to do with planets), then you have the burden of at least showing how all those archetypes (and Venus as Mother Goddess, Mars as Warrior / Hero, etc.), all of which are global patternsthat seem to be easily explained by the PC hypothesis, could be also explained by a completely different hypothesis / model where extra-solar stars such as Taurus are the gods (remember that the bull of heaven was a deity).
And this is actually only a relatively minute part of the whole colossal burden, as I briefly tried to explain in my previous email, e.g. if we humans were here for so long and with very high levels of sophistication, where’s the overwhelming evidence from all the branches of science converging to such a very radical proposal?

Again, I am not an expert by any means, so please do not believe me! Anyway, I need to focus on my thing… This topic is too exciting for me, please stop! LOL 

I’m currently studying Collective Electrodynamics by one of my heroes, Carver Mead. If you want to switch a bit into Physics, I highly recommend watching this lecture:


It was great speaking with you guys today, have a good night!



On 12 September 2017 at 01:37, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

I should have just posted a picture:
Note the ecliptic, compared to the horns.  This event of the sun passing between the horns happens even now.
To misinterpret the Bull of Heaven as a solar system object/configuration, would be to throw out all the important information that has been passed down on ages.   All ages defined as the point of entrance of the sun into a particular sign.  As in, “when the sun comes to the first point of Aries on the Vernal equinox….”
From: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
To: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>; “dj@argos.vu” <dj@argos.vu>; jhafner <jhafner@swcp.com
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Taurus History


And just to get Taurus the bull out from where it should not be: the sun in Taurus is the figure of the bull with the sun between its horns. If we do not take it out of context as some catastrophists do, we find that the sun in Taurus, depicted as bull with sun between its horns, was depicted as a time marker. 
  I’ll quote from “Star Lore” by William Tyler Olcott,”the sun in Taurus was deified under the symbol of the bull…and is seen in the ruins of Egypt and Assyria” and “the Persians also were worshippers of the bull…and designated successive signs of the Zodiac by letters….with them A stands for Taurus…indicating that they considered the Bull the first sign of the zodiac” and “in fact in all the ancient zodiacs that have come down to us Taurus apparently began the year, and it seems to have been regarded as a Bull in all of the ancient Mediterranean cultures”

Also”the bull was an important object of worship with the Druids, and their great Tauric festival was held when the sun entered this constellation”

The point is merely that we can see that the bull and sun between the bulls horns was a symbol used even in the earliest ages to denote a constellation and our “time” within it. 

I am not arguing against a polar alignment of planets, but not ALL mythology is about this one event. Especially when we have clear written records that do say what this figure was all about.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.astrology-zodiac- signs.com/history/taurus/

> This would suggest that it was in Babylonian times that Taurus was first identified as the “Bull of Heaven”.
> I’ll try to search for a better reference
8 Attachments


001 EU Meetup September 4, 2017

Jean, Jim and Juan,

Great conversation last week.

Just want to extend the invitation for the meeting tomorrow.
Skype meetup on
Monday: September 4, 2017 at
UTC-3      8:00pm
Mountain  5:00pm
PST          4:00pm
Any topics you’d like to cover I can collate here so we can reference them during the meeting.
Have a great Sunday.

000 EU Meetup Aug 28, 2017

​It was great to meet up on Skype today.

Here are a few references from the conversation:

Hopf fibration

24,000 cycle – Esoteric

Also find included, some info on the Solvay Conferences – (wanted to check it out)

Have a great week, I’ll touch base over the weekend.



020 EU Meetup January 30, 2018

 EU Meetup January 30, 2018

 Do electrons and protons maintain their identity ?
1 message

Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:39 PM
To: Edo Kael <edwinkaal00@gmail.com>
Cc: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>, "dj@argos.vu" <dj@argos.vu>
"Does any portion of the universe maintain its identity?"

If one assumes an absolutely boundless universe, then the answer is no. Any portion of a Boundless Universe is endlessly integrated and endlessly divided and fluctuates in a permanent process of becoming. Each portion is absolutely unique with respect to all other portions, and each portion is different from itself from one instant to the next.

Regarding that last part as it relates to identity: we all know that all portions of the universe with which we relate everyday are ever-changing and in constant flux. If it doesn't seem so, it is just that we haven't observed or measured it carefully, or waited long enough. The only constant is change. A triangle is changeless, but a triangle is just an idea. The totality of evidence indicates that the external world is in permanent flux.

That doesn't mean that portions of the universe cannot have qualities with remarkably persistent properties, of course, not only protons and electrons but all portions of matter have such qualities. The important point is that, in a Boundless Universe, all such portions also have countless other qualities that are fluctuating. So, overall, any portion of the universe is constantly evolving and has a unique inexhaustible structure that is never absolutely the same moment to moment.

As I said before, a galactic observer would be amazed by the remarkably persistent properties of the solar system. A remarkably persistent solar system mass, orbits following geometrical proportions, the main solar cycle and a large etcétera. If you were only to measure such properties (something reasonable considering their relative simplicity), one could postulate that those are only the variables that actually exist and pose that the solar system is remarkably simple. So, in terms of such variables, the solar system "identity" is maintained. As we know, the solar system is mindbogglingly complex, not only in terms of its fruit salad planetary system, but also even in terms of all the aspects of the sun itself, which is as far as a perfect geometrical platonic sphere as one could imagine, something we now know thanks to the incredible data gathered since the space age beginnings.

In sum, we know for a fact that, even if it has a fascinating array of persistent regularities, the solar system is unique and unrepeatable compared to the rest of the universe, and each moment of the solar system is unique and unrepeatable compared to any moment in the past or in the future. So, pondering on such indisputable facts, how are we going to think about the atomic scale? Well, one must necessarily assume one of two things:

1) That this observed quality of the universe of uniqueness and non-repeatability continues to be true at any deeper scales (a consequence of assuming a boundless universe).
2) That this observed quality of the universe changes at a given deeper unobservant scale (a consequence of assuming a finite universe that implies an hypothetical fundamental and irreducible simplicity at some deeper scale, a simplicity not observed in any other scale that we can observe).
I think that Ockham said something about these situations!
In any case, we can go through the empirical way: everything that we have measured at the atomic scales or smaller is constantly waving, i.e. in permanent flux. Any physical wave requires a deeper wave-conducting medium with deeper complexity (e.g. compressions and rarefactions) to enact the waving.

In terms of such worldview, each and every electron is different and unique, as all of the protons. That said, all electrons have crucial similarities as attested in the very precise regularities that they demonstrate. In a more general way, in a boundless universe, all things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things.

Think about a huge field with 100.000 tuning forks, all of slightly different sizes, shapes, and materials, but all tuned to 440 Hz. You very carefully measure the sizes, shapes and composition of each one and find out that they are all completely different. But then you hit them and force all of them to vibrate, and you measure that the fundamental frequency is always 440 Hz. They are absolutely identical!

The truth, of course, is that those 100.000 units are neither completely different nor absolutely identical. All portions of the universe exist in a similarity-dissimilarity continuum. And that applies to protons and electrons as well. You must always remember that experimental physicists do not measure the momentum of the electron (as if they were a "classical particle"), they measure wavelength and frequency, two basic wave properties. Tuning forks are very educational.


Scientists unveil new form of matter: time crystals

Edo Kael <edwinkaal00@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:40 AM
To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
Cc: "dj@argos.vu" <dj@argos.vu>, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>


I cannot attest to planets and such and fall back myself to the explanation Wal Thornhill has for a "hollow earth". In my mind i consider it an option due to the electric effect, meaning IF that is shown to be the case, i would go for it, but would still want some proof.
The reason is that despite the fact that the atom is "hollow' that is only true to a certain extent. The Carbon is hollow like and since the elements are more or less made up of those one could argue that is has room.  However the atom is more fractal in nature and does try to gather all the mass / matter in the smallest sphere as possible and does this in the densest packing manner. The fact that Carbon is hollow has to do with the fact that the individual protons cannot fall further into the center because they support each other in a static and equilibrium situation. This in my view also implies that the atom and in particular the nucleus resist absorption of energy...
I have said my  goodbye's to QM and anything it tries to tell us. That means i do not adhere to the theory, i do pay close attention and consider that good science, the isotopic data for example, mass number, proton / electron numbers, melting points, ionization energy levels, spin, valence value etc etc. One might argue that this is also QM, but i would say that is can be done without QM.... and has been at first for sure when no one heard of QM and we still did physics and chemistry.
 If the mass or charge is concentrated into a hollow shell of radius=1, the inverse square law works at infinity, but fails spectaculary at radius= 1. Inside r=1 there is no field/force.
Well that is how i see the proton and even the electron, having a radius / being a sphere, there are no dots i believe.
Could this conclusion at radius one have something to do with the decay of the neutron? into an electron proton pair? I am unsure as to why you reach that conclusion (fails at r=1)

Jim Weninger

7:09 PM 

to djEdoJuan
Sorry if the last post was again cryptic, but I'll share my viewpoint in a little more detail, and as always,  I'm looking  for objections before I go too far out with ill conceived ideas:
We've talked before about ideas of a hollow Sun and Earth, compared to the mainstream idea of a Sun or Earth which increase in density towards center.  Also, I am arguing that the atom is a nearly exact replication of the solar system, just on another scale.  (by the way, the arrangement of mass in Edo's model of the nucleus also does NOT give us a concentration of mass at the center of the nucleus)
So here is the question (on each scale):  How could we know if solar system objects, like Sun and Earth, are hollow?  Or, how could we know if atomic scale objects (in this article, it is the proton), are hollow?  That is how could we tell if the mass of the sun (or a proton), were located at the center of the object, compared to the periphery?  Comparing nearby orbits to farther out orbits, that is how.
Whether we are talking planetary orbits around the sun, or electron orbits around a proton, if we move out to a large radius, it does not matter where the mass is located.  We can treat a planet as if it is attracted to the sun's center , or an electron as if it is attracted to a protons center.  But, if we close in on either object, we see the problem.
I would like you guys to draw this for yourselves, because it WILL explain the muon vs electron orbits.
And tell us the mass distribution in a proton.  Or on the solar system scale, the mass distribution of the sun.
In even simpler terms (just so you can see what I'm saying), if mass or charge  is concentrated at a point, the inverse square law works all the way from radius =infinity , to radius = 0.    If the mass or charge is concentrated into a hollow shell of radius=1, the inverse square law works at infinity, but fails spectaculary at radius= 1. Inside r=1 there is no field/force.
This IS the source of the proton radius problem.  The proton, just like the sun, IS (relatively) hollow.     The nucleus too, is again relatively hollow, but Edo must already know this.
On Saturday, January 27, 2018, 6:15:46 PM MST, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just wandering through a bunch of stuff - and finding this idea interesting in regards to why the electron may maintain it's identity when bound so closely with the proton and visa versa of course.
Interested in your thoughts.
Also a Sympathetic Vibratory Model keeps "Ringing Down" in my head:
Extrapolate this as r decreases to zero - Harmonically resonate the frequencies "back down" and consider what "White Light" may perhaps be:


Steric Repulsion

Sterically Stabilized Dispersion

For sterically stabilized dispersions, the resulting energy-distance curve often shows a shallow minimum, Vmin, at a particle-particle separation distance h comparable to twice the adsorbed layer thickness delta. For a given material, the depth of this minimum depends on the particle size R and adsorbed layer thickness delta.

Vmin vs d per R.jpg

Hence Vmin decreases with increase in <math>\frac{\delta }{R}</math>, as illustrated in the figure above. This is because as we increase the layer thickness, the van der Waals attraction weakness so the superposition of attraction and repulsion will have a smaller minimum. For very small steric layers, <math>V_{\min }</math> may become deep enough to cause weak flocculation, resulting in a weak attractive gel.

On the other hand, if the layer thickness is too large, the viscosity is also increased due to repulsion. This is due to the much higher effective volume fraction <math>\Phi _{eff}</math> of the dispersion compared with the core volume fraction. We can calculate the effective volume fraction of particles plus dispersant layer by geometry and we see that it depends on the thickness of that adsorbed layer, as illustrated in the figure below.

Steric layer.jpg

The effective volume fraction increases with relative increase in the dispersant layer thickness. Even at 10% volume fraction we can soon reach maximum packing (<math>\Phi =0.67</math>) with an adsorbed layer comparable to the particle radius. In this case, overlap of the steric layers will result in significant viscosity increases. Such considerations help to explain why the solids loading can be severely limited, especially with small particles. In practice, solids loading curves can be used to characterize the system and will take the form of those illustrated below:

Solids loading.jpg

A higher solids loading might be achieved with thinner adsorbed layers but may also lead to interparticle attraction, resulting in particle aggregation. Clearly a compromise is needed: choosing an appropriate steric stabilizer for the particle size of the pigment.

Super Blue Blood Moon 2018:

During the early hours of Jan. 31, there will be a full moon, a total lunar eclipse, a blue moon and a supermoon. None of these things is all that unusual. What is rare is that they’re happening all together on one day.