Dean,
These are all fine and interesting observations, however, many of the
conclusions your assume are just assumptions. You spend a lot of effort in
trying to refute the idea of the inner sun being a non-fission process. You
even suggest that the external sun, that of our solar system, is also a
non-fission sun. Why the great determination to insist upon this view? It
is not critical to any HE Theory that either sun be a non-fission sun. There
is much evidence that indicates that both suns do exemplify a fission process
and do produce a nuclear residue as a result. True, the external and
internal suns do not necessarily function in exactly the same process or are
necessarily composed of exactly the same proportions of matter, but it is
presumptuous to assume that this nuclear process would naturally destroy all
life. Nature has accommodated for a means by which we are protected from
this radiation which in fact allows for life on this planet, both inside and
out. Nuclear reactors on the exterior of the earth which generate
electricity, don't, by their mere presence, destroy all life around them.
There are safeguards and protective systems by which this nuclear reaction
and the radiation generated from this nuclear process are contained to allow
life to exist at relatively close proximity to this function. Such has
nature provided for equally effective screens or protective systems to
nullify this otherwise life-fatal energy source. Ozone layers, the Van Allen
Belt, terrarium-like cloud coverage of the inner "Smokey God" sun. All of
these unique systems, which are absent on the surface of dead planets, do
exist on this living planet. These filtering systems protect us from the
otherwise deadly radiation of our external sun, which are quite possibly the
very byproduct of our internal sun processes, i.e., the mirror bottle process
of the plasma generating system, which is what the Van Allen Belt is. Thus,
it seems rather mute to try and dispel that process by which the very nature
of the systems that make this planet uniquely prepared to support life are
based. Granted, it may not be the case, but, there is as much, if not more,
"evidence" that it very well could be the case. It worries me that your need
to dispel the interior sun's possible nuclear process is so driven that we
have to suggest that the exterior sun of our solar system is also non-nuclear
in function. This positioning of yours reminds me of your positioning in
explaining away the fallacious reference to the interior sun's rising and
setting in the "Smokey God" book. You may be perfectly correct in all your
suppositions. They are certainly well thought out. But they may be
incorrect as well. There are many possibilities, let's be open to
considering them all. The suns of this planet may or may not be nuclear in
their processes, but they may be just that. And either way doesn't deminish
the overwhelming support that nature provides for the Hollow Earth Theory.
Norlan
Dean,
These are all fine and interesting observations, however, many of the
conclusions your assume are just assumptions. You spend a lot of effort
in
trying to refute the idea of the inner sun being a non-fission process.
You
even suggest that the external sun, that of our solar system, is also a
non-fission sun. Why the great determination to insist upon this view?
It
is not critical to any HE Theory that either sun be a non-fission sun.
Norlan,
I disagree. A hollow Earth model which includes a nuclear inner sun can be
brushed aside- I've been presenting arguments to this effect- and all of the
other efforts to present evidence could go down the drain with it.
The concept of a nuclear sun was arrived at before the sructure of plasmas
were understood. The heating mechanism, involving the fundamental particles,
as Cater outlines, is still not understood.
Somebody has to stand up and vigourously present the non-nuclear model.
Cater's book originally came out before the internet revolution, and none of
the hollow Earther's on the net seem to be familiar with this alternative
model a all.
There
is much evidence that indicates that both suns do exemplify a fission
process
and do produce a nuclear residue as a result. True, the external and
internal suns do not necessarily function in exactly the same process or
are
necessarily composed of exactly the same proportions of matter, but it is
presumptuous to assume that this nuclear process would naturally destroy
all
life. Nature has accommodated for a means by which we are protected from
this radiation which in fact allows for life on this planet, both inside
and
out.
There are people who don't feel that nature could filter the effects of our
solar system sun were it nuclear- like Cater. Have you seen Goodfellows
article? I'm not saying that he has it perfectly figured out, but he seems
to be close, if not right there.
http://www.goodfelloweb.com/nature/cgbi/index.html#d
Nuclear reactors on the exterior of the earth which generate
electricity, don't, by their mere presence, destroy all life around them.
There are safeguards and protective systems by which this nuclear reaction
and the radiation generated from this nuclear process are contained to
allow
life to exist at relatively close proximity to this function.
Reactors do have enough filtering, agreed.
Such has
nature provided for equally effective screens or protective systems to
nullify this otherwise life-fatal energy source.
Not agreed.
Ozone layers, the Van Allen
Belt, terrarium-like cloud coverage of the inner "Smokey God" sun. All of
these unique systems, which are absent on the surface of dead planets, do
exist on this living planet. These filtering systems protect us from the
otherwise deadly radiation of our external sun,
Filtering systems exist, but this doesn't mean that it is a nuclear sun
which is necessarily being filtered. If the sun were nuclear, would those
systems be sufficient to cope?
which are quite possibly the
very byproduct of our internal sun processes, i.e., the mirror bottle
process
of the plasma generating system, which is what the Van Allen Belt is.
Thus,
it seems rather mute to try and dispel that process by which the very
nature
of the systems that make this planet uniquely prepared to support life are
based. Granted, it may not be the case, but, there is as much, if not
more,
"evidence" that it very well could be the case. It worries me that your
need
to dispel the interior sun's possible nuclear process is so driven that we
have to suggest that the exterior sun of our solar system is also
non-nuclear
in function. This positioning of yours reminds me of your positioning in
explaining away the fallacious reference to the interior sun's rising and
setting in the "Smokey God" book.
You are the one who walked into the book and insisted that this and that
part were interpolations. I was much more moderate- I suggested that maybe
night and day is what was meant instead of an actual rising and setting. You
changed what was presented in front of you much more than I did.
Actually, if the inner sun experiences " swings ", due to repulsion, from
more negative particles filtering in from the sunward side, then that might
explain the comments. And the inner sun could experience some dimming on the
side away from the solar system's sun. So a logical argument can be put
ogether without saying that something was interpolated. We can't prove that
it was. When we do so, we are changing that which is in front of us in order
to accomodate our concepts.
At the same time, it is difficult to argue from the book Smokey God. Olaf
isn't around anymore, he dictated the story on his deathbed, the notes,
which were going to be sent to the Smithsonian, are missing, and the author
could have very well changed something to make the book a little more "
palatable." I don't rule this possibility out.
I think that, in relation to the book Smokey God, therefore, we can offer
tentative explanations of some of the more difficult points, but it is hard
to insist on any interpretation. The book is on Greg's site for anyone
interested: http://www.onelight.com/hollow/library/smoke1.html
You may be perfectly correct in all your
suppositions. They are certainly well thought out. But they may be
incorrect as well. There are many possibilities, let's be open to
considering them all. The suns of this planet may or may not be nuclear
in
their processes, but they may be just that. And either way doesn't
deminish
the overwhelming support that nature provides for the Hollow Earth Theory.
Norlan
Back to the nature of the sun, I think that this is a good line of
discussion.
Dharma/Dean
ยทยทยท
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]