I have pondered all of these points, as well as others that have been raised since, after carefully studying what I believe to be unbiased scientific reports on various surveys - carried out by suitably-equipped planes flying over the Arctic surface, from surface vessels, and from the submarines of several nations - including the Russians, Swedes, etc.** The digital images thus acquired do clearly demonstrate that there is a very deep declivity or chasm around the actual North Pole location, and that it becomes extremely deep right at the site of the axial pole itself! These deepest chasms are openly admitted in the surveys to be largely filled, to enormous depths, with uncountable layers of dead biological matter, such as krill exoskeletons and the remains of other denizens of those waters, and are thus in essence, incapable of being definitively sounded. (Check out some of the Arctic Polar Research sites on the Net!)
Dean Writes:
Gerry,
The part about the deep chasams being incapable of being sounded, due to the accumulation of dead matte on the Arctic Ocean floor, is the type of thing that you expect. I'll conjecture that this area which isn't capable of being sounded is probably right at the sharpest part of the inward curvature, of the neck of the opening, and that the outline of this area is probably indicative of the opening's location. Check out this National Geographic map of the Polar basin; it is brand new on my site, at the very bottom: http://skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index6.html
Then look at the drawing of the magnetic lines of force above it, as depicted at one point by the Russians. You could almost impose this drawing on the " chasm " in the Arctic basin image. The Russians imagine a line when it's probably an elongated, slit-like opening.
Again, we get a good indication of the opening's location.
I still imagine that it is open and that the reason why the inner sun isn't detected is that its rays are of lower frequencies.
White hole!
Why is there no light coming out of the holes?
There must be light inside the hollow earth, so why does not some of
that light come out of the opening with the soft particles? The only
light we see is the northern light, and that light is mainly green,
why? Are the soft particles coming out of the opening made up of
mostly green photons? If they are made up of all kinds of soft
particles, why then is it only the green ones that usually
disintegrate?
As I think about this questions I start to realize that the hole will
not look like a hole at all. From above it would probably look like
the surrounding ice and snow, and from the side it will look like a
white wall.
You will understand why I think so if you know
the answer to the following question:
Why do things have a certain color?
I have some trouble with the northern light though, can anybody help
me?
They talk about the core as if it were accepted fact but really, it is just theory, which is based on further unproven theory.
They interpret their seismographs according to pre-conceived ideas about gravity. If gravity does not behave as they imagine deep within the Earth, then their interpretation crumbles.
Why is there no light coming out of the holes? There must be light inside the hollow earth, so why does not some of that light come out of the opening with the soft particles?
Dean writes:
There must be a buildup of soft particles on the inner side of the opening. This much Cater points out on page 76 of The Awesome Life Force, chapter six. This backup must capture and camouflage a lot of visible light on its way out. ( I like your Pacman analogy )
Frode writes:
The only light we see is the northern light, and that light is mainly green, why? Are the soft particles coming out of the opening made up of mostly green photons? If they are made up of all kinds of soft particles, why then is it only the green ones that usually disintegrate?
Dean writes:
Red is also common and blue and purple can be seen when the aurora is exposed to moonlight or sunlight.
What happens is that the invisible, soft particles break up and liberate visible light in a certain band. The color of the light probably depends on the amount of redistribution of frequency that the light has gone through. This, in turn, is probably a function of distance from the inner sun traveled and intensity of soft particle flow through the opening. At a certain altitude the visible particles are liberated from the soft particles which house them; below that point, only visible soft particles are there. Green isn't that far from blue, which suggests that the process is still at the beginning.
What do you think?
Frode Wrote:
As I think about this questions I start to realize that the hole will not look like a hole at all. From above it would probably look like the surrounding ice and snow, and from the side it will look like a white wall.
You will understand why I think so if you know the answer to the following question:
Why do things have a certain color?
Frode:
Things have a certain color because all of the colors of light are absorbed by the object which the light bounces off of, EXCEPT the color of the very light which bounces off.
Frode wrote:
I have some trouble with the northern light though, can anybody help me?
Dean writes:
Here is something from page 285 of Gardner's book which might:
" There are some other considerations which show that the aurora is really due to the interior sun. Dr. Kane, in his,account of his explorations, tells us that the aurora is brightest when it is white. That shows that when the reflection of the sun is so clear that the total white light is reflected, we get a much brighter effect than when the light is cut up into prismatic colors. In the latter case the atmosphere is damp and dense-that being the cause of the rainbow effect-and through such an atmosphere one cannot see so much. Hence the display is not so bright as it is when the atmosphere is clear and the light not broken up."
Let me know what it is that you are leading up to- I am curious.
Flesh and bone!
Flesh and bone? What do I mean with that? What I think of as the
bone of matter is what we all know as atoms, they are well known in
conventional physics. But when a physicist look at atoms they realize
that they are made up of close to nothing. So why does not light just
pass through? Cater has an explanation for this and that is
soft-particles filling the space between the atoms. Matter would not
be seen if it was not for the soft-particles, that is why I call them
the flesh of matter. When you make 3D images you first work with a
wire frame (atoms) and then put on the skin or surface
(soft-particles) to make the image look real.
Frode wrote:
Why is there no light coming out of the
holes? There must be light inside the hollow earth, so why does not
some of that light come out of the opening with the soft
particles?
Dean writes:
There must be a buildup of soft particles on the inner
side of the opening. This much Cater points out on page 76 of The
Awesome Life Force, chapter six. This backup must capture and
camouflage a lot of visible light on its way out. ( I like your Pacman
analogy
The function of the holes is to let out the excessive energy
received from the Sun. This energy is in to form so soft particles
that are compressed together when they escape through the hole. But I
think the main reason for light not being able to get through the is
not duo to the "Pacman" analogy but that the compressed soft
particles make a wall that reflect all light back into the interior
earth, and likewise work as a reflecting wall for incoming light from
the sun trying to enter the hole. Thus the hole would appear to be
white when seen from above. This soft-electrons will shoot out of the
hole like a fountain following the magnetic lines. This will appear as
a wall of soft-electrons when one get close to the hole, and since
soft electrons reflect light guess that this wall will be white. It
might look like a dens fog. This might explain some of the stories I
have read here in this forum lately. The compressed soft particles in
the hole can be compared to ordinary matter, except that it has no
bone structure. And that means that even if it appear solid you can
pass through it.
Frode writes:
The only light we see is the
northern light, and that light is mainly green, why? Are the soft
particles coming out of the opening made up of mostly green
photons? If they are made up of all kinds of soft particles, why then
is it only the green ones that usually
disintegrate?
Dean writes:
Red is also common and blue and purple can
be seen when the aurora is exposed to moonlight or
sunlight.
I have seldom seen any other color then green, but I am not
living so fare north either. But my impression is still that the color
is mostly green.
What happens is that the invisible, soft
particles break up and liberate visible light in a certain
band.
That is how I understand it also. But why that certain band? Has
it anything to do with that gas content of the atmosphere?
The color of the light probably depends on
the amount of redistribution of frequency that the light has gone
through.
I am not sure what you mean with this dean, but it seems like
there is something like that going on when you look at satellite
pictures. You see how the lower portion of the Eudora is green and
higher up it turns to yellow and then red. There is something else
with the Eudora that I have not thought abut before, it seems to defy
gravity. Have you thought about that? Look at the picture below:
This, in turn, is probably a function of
distance from the inner sun traveled and intensity of soft particle
flow through the opening. At a certain altitude the visible
particles are liberated from the soft particles which house them;
below that point, only visible soft particles are there. Green isn't
that far from blue, which suggests that the process is still at the
beginning.
I am not so sure that the use of "liberate" is right to
use in this context. The soft-electrons disintegrate into the
particles that made them up, which is photons.
What do you
think?
I think that I have to do a lot more thinking on this
Frode Wrote:
As I think about this questions I start to realize that the hole will
not look like a hole at all. From above it would probably look like
the surrounding ice and snow, and from the side it will look like a
white wall.
You will understand why I think so if you
know the answer to the following question:
Why do things have a certain
color?
Frode:
Things have a certain color because all of the colors of
light are absorbed by the object which the light bounces off of,
EXCEPT the color of the very light which bounces
off.
But why do some photons bounce off and some don't? The reason is,
according to soft-particle physics, that the thing itself contain the
color in the form of soft electrons in the same frequency band as the
light that is reflected when light shines on it.
Frode wrote:
I have some trouble with the northern
light though, can anybody help me?
Dean writes:
Here is something from page 285 of Gardner's book which
might:
" There are some other considerations which show that
the aurora is really due to the interior sun. Dr. Kane, in his,account
of his explorations, tells us that the aurora is brightest when it is
white. That shows that when the reflection of the sun is so clear that
the total white light is reflected, we get a much brighter effect than
when the light is cut up into prismatic colors. In the latter case the
atmosphere is damp and dense-that being the cause of the rainbow
effect-and through such an atmosphere one cannot see so much. Hence
the display is not so bright as it is when the atmosphere is clear and
the light not broken up."
Let me know what it is that you are leading up to- I am
curious.
Dean
I hope you got some clues through this mail.
Frode
···
eGroups Sponsor
`To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
