Your message made me wonder what could be seen if we could image
nonvisible frequences of the aurora (or that area) from the earth
instead of from space? Check out this link:
If you look at images of the aurorae, you have to remember that NASA
only
images the visible light- they claim that their instrumentation
cannot image
in lower frequencies because a sheath of electricity forms along the
edges
of spacecraft. Convenient- if they could image in lower frequencies,
from
above the poles, they might see radiation streaming out of the polar
openings showing their location. This radiation is not typically in
the
visible band.
Anyway, maybe now you are seeing the types of problems one runs up
against
when simple trust is placed in images.
Posted by Dharma/Dean
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
You know, you may just be on to something. One huge problem with Cater's
theory that the inner sun emits light in lower frequencies, i.e., invisible,
is that NASA instrumentation can't perceive such light because their space
craft/satellites become covered by an electric blanket. Here is a part of
the interview with Rick Chapell of the Marshall Space Flight Center in which
Dr. Chapell explained this:
" RIMS [ a satellite ]also could not measure the lowest energy ions which
would help confirm that the source was the ionosphere and not the solar
wind.
It turns out that all spacecraft develop an electrical charge. For high
altitude satellites, exposure to sunlight and the passage through plasmas
give a satellite a charge of about 5 to 10 eV. A small cloud of ions, a
plasma sheath, builds around the spacecraft and repels anything with lower
energy.
' We needed a device to neutralize that plasma sheath,' Chappell said.
'Unless you can do that, you won't ever see those particles.'"
But who needs to wait for NASA. Somebody just has to get close enough with
the right kind of equipment, like you said. I don't know why this never
dawned on me.
This should become an issue with us, a project. Let's kick around ideas.
The person who does this would have to get close enough to the actual
opening- just getting to the North Pole, for example, might not do.
Dharma/Dean
···
Your message made me wonder what could be seen if we could image
nonvisible frequences of the aurora (or that area) from the earth
instead of from space? Check out this link:
Wish I could go with some hi-tech photo equipment!
--Danelle
--- Dean De Lucia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If you look at images of the aurorae, you have to remember that NASA
> only
> images the visible light- they claim that their instrumentation
> cannot image
> in lower frequencies because a sheath of electricity forms along the
> edges
> of spacecraft. Convenient- if they could image in lower frequencies,
> from
> above the poles, they might see radiation streaming out of the polar
> openings showing their location. This radiation is not typically in
> the
> visible band.
>
> Anyway, maybe now you are seeing the types of problems one runs up
> against
> when simple trust is placed in images.
>
> Posted by Dharma/Dean
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
The inner sun does not emit light in lower frequencies, it emits photons of light in the form of photon aggregates( soft particles). NASA has never, at least officially, tried to detect soft particles, so the electric blanket has nothing to do with their ability to detect soft particles. The electric blanket made them unable to detect charged particles(ions) from the ionosphere.
Frode
···
Danelle,
You know, you may just be on to something. One huge problem with Cater's
theory that the inner sun emits light in lower frequencies, i.e., invisible,
is that NASA instrumentation can't perceive such light because their space
craft/satellites become covered by an electric blanket. Here is a part of
the interview with Rick Chapell of the Marshall Space Flight Center in which
Dr. Chapell explained this:
" RIMS [ a satellite ]also could not measure the lowest energy ions which
would help confirm that the source was the ionosphere and not the solar
wind.
It turns out that all spacecraft develop an electrical charge. For high
altitude satellites, exposure to sunlight and the passage through plasmas
give a satellite a charge of about 5 to 10 eV. A small cloud of ions, a
plasma sheath, builds around the spacecraft and repels anything with lower
energy.
' We needed a device to neutralize that plasma sheath,' Chappell said.
'Unless you can do that, you won't ever see those particles.'"
But who needs to wait for NASA. Somebody just has to get close enough with
the right kind of equipment, like you said. I don't know why this never
dawned on me.
This should become an issue with us, a project. Let's kick around ideas.
The person who does this would have to get close enough to the actual
opening- just getting to the North Pole, for example, might not do.
Dharma/Dean
Your message made me wonder what could be seen if we could image
nonvisible frequences of the aurora (or that area) from the earth
instead of from space? Check out this link:
Wish I could go with some hi-tech photo equipment!
--Danelle
--- Dean De Lucia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If you look at images of the aurorae, you have to remember that NASA
> only
> images the visible light- they claim that their instrumentation
> cannot image
> in lower frequencies because a sheath of electricity forms along the
> edges
> of spacecraft. Convenient- if they could image in lower frequencies,
> from
> above the poles, they might see radiation streaming out of the polar
> openings showing their location. This radiation is not typically in
> the
> visible band.
>
> Anyway, maybe now you are seeing the types of problems one runs up
> against
> > when simple trust is placed in images.
> >
> > Posted by Dharma/Dean
>
> __________________________________________________
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
Re: Gardner's book once again on the constant aurora. It seems that if one
is close the light is visible enough.
OBSERVATIONS BY EARLIER SCIENTISTS
Let us, before concluding, however, give one or two more citations to show
that the evidence already adduced is not only to be had in isolated
instances but is agreed with by all observers at all times. In the first
place, verification of the fact that Greely obtained no results when he set
up his electrometer during a display of the aurora when he was on his
northern expedition, will be found in the interview which he gave the
Associated Press and which was published all over the country and is to be
found in the Scientific American Supplement for September 6, 1884. Again,
Nordenskiold gave a correspondent of the New York Herald an account of his
explorations in the Arctic in the course of which he made this very
important announcement:
" Whenever the sky was clear, and there was no sun or moon, he saw constant
in the northeast horizon, and almost always in the same exact spot, a
faintly luminous arc so motionless as to be susceptible of accurate
measurement. This phenomenon, Nordenskiold concludes, comes from an actual
aureole, or ring of light, surrounding the northern portion of the globe."
So you are confirming to me that the plasma sheath which develops around
spacecraft does not interefere with the perception of soft particle
emanation from the inner sun?
Dean,
The inner sun does not emit light in lower frequencies, it emits
photons of light in the form of photon aggregates( soft particles).
But photon aggragates are invisible, right? I mean, you don't see the light
from the inner sun shooting out of the opening, nor do you see a rain of
soft particles in caverns, mine shafts and caves underneath the ground- at
least, not until you penetrate a good 20 miles and the photon aggragates
begin to release the visible particles, right?
Dean
NASA has never, at least officially, tried to detect soft particles,
so the electric blanket has nothing to do with their ability to
detect soft particles. The electric blanket made them unable to
detect charged particles(ions) from the ionosphere.
Frode
>Danelle,
>
>You know, you may just be on to something. One huge problem with Cater's
>theory that the inner sun emits light in lower frequencies, i.e.,
invisible,
>is that NASA instrumentation can't perceive such light because their
space
>craft/satellites become covered by an electric blanket. Here is a part of
>the interview with Rick Chapell of the Marshall Space Flight Center in
which
>Dr. Chapell explained this:
>
>" RIMS [ a satellite ]also could not measure the lowest energy ions which
>would help confirm that the source was the ionosphere and not the solar
>wind.
>
>It turns out that all spacecraft develop an electrical charge. For high
>altitude satellites, exposure to sunlight and the passage through plasmas
>give a satellite a charge of about 5 to 10 eV. A small cloud of ions, a
>plasma sheath, builds around the spacecraft and repels anything with
lower
>energy.
>
>' We needed a device to neutralize that plasma sheath,' Chappell said.
>'Unless you can do that, you won't ever see those particles.'"
>
>But who needs to wait for NASA. Somebody just has to get close enough
with
···
>the right kind of equipment, like you said. I don't know why this never
>dawned on me.
>
>This should become an issue with us, a project. Let's kick around ideas.
>
>The person who does this would have to get close enough to the actual
>opening- just getting to the North Pole, for example, might not do.
>
>Dharma/Dean
>
>
>> Your message made me wonder what could be seen if we could image
>> nonvisible frequences of the aurora (or that area) from the earth
>> instead of from space? Check out this link:
>>
>> http://www.arcticodysseys.com/aurora.htm
>>
>> Wish I could go with some hi-tech photo equipment!
>>
>> --Danelle
>>
>>
>> --- Dean De Lucia <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > If you look at images of the aurorae, you have to remember that NASA
>> > only
>> > images the visible light- they claim that their instrumentation
>> > cannot image
>> > in lower frequencies because a sheath of electricity forms along the
>> > edges
>> > of spacecraft. Convenient- if they could image in lower frequencies,
>> > from
>> > above the poles, they might see radiation streaming out of the polar
>> > openings showing their location. This radiation is not typically in
>> > the
>> > visible band.
>> >
>> > Anyway, maybe now you are seeing the types of problems one runs up
>> > against
> > > when simple trust is placed in images.
> > >
> > > Posted by Dharma/Dean
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email protected]
So you are confirming to me that the plasma sheath which develops around
spacecraft does not interefere with the perception of soft particle
emanation from the inner sun?
There is in a sense nothing to interfere since there are no sensors aboard the satellite to perceive the soft-particles. The plasma sheath interferes with sensors that could have perceived charged ions from the ionosphere which got their trust from the flow of soft-particles. That could at least be a cause that could explain the phenomena.
Dean,
The inner sun does not emit light in lower frequencies, it emits
photons of light in the form of photon aggregates( soft particles).
But photon aggragates are invisible, right? I mean, you don't see the light
from the inner sun shooting out of the opening, nor do you see a rain of
soft particles in caverns, mine shafts and caves underneath the ground- at
least, not until you penetrate a good 20 miles and the photon aggragates
begin to release the visible particles, right?
Dean
When you used the term "invisible" it could be misunderstood, at least in my ears, to mean the lower frequencies of infrared or something. The idea that light also consist of an invisible (soft-particles) part is not so well known, not even to many on this list. It is not a common thing for surface dwellers to make comments on the biophotonic light that surrounds and penetrate every living thing, is it?
On the 29th of March, 1873, W.F. Denning observed a depression in the polar
regions which he described as looking like a " small " crater. ( See NASA
color-enhanced image ) Is Denning's depression related to a polar opening?
In the early 1970s this depression was seen again by a number of British and
American astronomers. Another phenomena seen and even photographed by NASA
space craft is the polar " collar. " This is a ring which surrounds the
polar regions. Could this polar collar be linked to the existence of Polar
openings on Venus?
Joseph H. Cater, in his book The Ultimate Reality, makes the following
appropriate comments in this regard:
" Radar pictures recently taken of Venus show two almost perfectly round
depressions that are antipodes of each other. One has a diameter that is 40
percent as great as that of the planet itself. The other has a diameter
nearly 30 percent as great. Incredibly, these were explained away as being
impact craters. It is difficult to believe that even the scientific
community has any members of sufficient mental vacuity to endorse such an
explanation. Yet the author knows an honored member intimately who insists
this is what they are. As anyone who has even a modicum of intelligence
should realize, an impact crater will have a depth that is a reasonable
percentage of its diameter, especially if the missile does not bounce off
and sinks below the surface. An impact capable of producing a crater with
such a diameter would completely shatter even a solid planet. The impossible
coincidence that a planet would have two such craters nearly the exact
antipodes of each other has been cheerfully ignored.
The only possible explanation is that these " depressions " are giant
openings into the hollow interior. The energies being radiated from these
openings would deflect radar to the extent of creating the illusion of their
being shallow sinks. Venus, being closer to the sun and in full view of the
binary, would require much larger openings to dissipate the heat that would
build up in the interior.
Other claims by NASA with regard to Venus which are steeped in
contradictions are those of the dense clouds surrounding Venus consisting of
sulphuric acid, and that the surface temperature is about 1000� F. Early
pictures of Venusian terrain sent back by a probe which soft landed on the
surface show a landscape very similar to that of the earth or the Moon.
Rocks were shown with sharp edges and there was the usual evidence of normal
ground erosion. The type of erosion that would be produced by a combination
of high concentrations of sulphuric acid and 1000� F would reduce everything
on the surface to a blob. The clouds on Venus undoubtedly consist of a
tremendous mantle of water vapor and droplets, which would protect the
surface and promote earthlike conditions." ( Chapter 15 )
I have been thinking about your statement below and the confusion that it is
causing me. You know, in the chapter where Cater talks about teleportaion,
he states that soft particles are the ones that reflect light and that, when
driven out from atoms, matter becomes invisible.
But then in other places, it's assumed that soft particles are invisible.
What am I missing?
Dean
···
Dean,
The inner sun does not emit light in lower frequencies, it emits
photons of light in the form of photon aggregates( soft particles).
NASA has never, at least officially, tried to detect soft particles,
so the electric blanket has nothing to do with their ability to
detect soft particles. The electric blanket made them unable to
detect charged particles(ions) from the ionosphere.
You have a red book in front of you. You are sitting in a windowless room with an electric light that you can switch off and on. You switch of the light. What so you see? A red book? Nope! you see nothing (if you continue sitting there for at least two weeks in the darkness you might start to see something, but that is a different story)
So what is the point of this obvious experiment? Soft particles gives things its perceived color, but the color you see is not the soft particles. The visible portion of the light hits the red book, most of the light is absorbed by the book, except the parts of the spectrum that together make up the red color. That part of the spectrum is bunched off because of the soft-particles on the surface of the book. This soft particles consist of the same photons as those that are bunched off, but they are not visible. They are perceived because of the visual photons that bunch off. Turn of that photon source and nothing is seen.
Frode
PS! Remember flesh & bone.
···
Frode,
I have been thinking about your statement below and the confusion that it is
causing me. You know, in the chapter where Cater talks about teleportaion,
he states that soft particles are the ones that reflect light and that, when
driven out from atoms, matter becomes invisible.
But then in other places, it's assumed that soft particles are invisible.
When you used the term "invisible" it could be misunderstood, at
least in my ears, to mean the lower frequencies of infrared or
something. The idea that light also consist of an invisible
(soft-particles) part is not so well known, not even to many on this
list. It is not a common thing for surface dwellers to make comments
on the biophotonic light that surrounds and penetrate every living
thing, is it?
Frode
Frode,
Ok, I've been confusing soft particles with lower frequency particles. So
soft particles are a counterpart to hard particles, it isn't a matter of
higher and lower frequencies.
Does this mean that each atom has both, or that there are soft particle
atoms and hrad particle atoms floating around at the same time.
Doesn't Cater define soft particles as being below the frequency of gamma?
> When you used the term "invisible" it could be misunderstood, at
least in my ears, to mean the lower frequencies of infrared or
something. The idea that light also consist of an invisible
(soft-particles) part is not so well known, not even to many on this
list. It is not a common thing for surface dwellers to make comments
on the biophotonic light that surrounds and penetrate every living
thing, is it?
Frode
Frode,
Ok, I've been confusing soft particles with lower frequency particles. So
soft particles are a counterpart to hard particles, it isn't a matter of
higher and lower frequencies.
Yes and no! And that is what I think confuses you. Since the frequency is the measurement we use today to keep one radiation apart from another radiation it is easy to confuse the particles that make up the radiation with the frequency of that radiation. What you call "lower frequency particles" has no "frequency" behavior, but they are made up of photons that have. It is that same with "hard-particles". They are made up of photons above the gamma range, but they themselves have no frequency behavior comparable to the photons.
Does this mean that each atom has both, or that there are soft particle
atoms and hrad particle atoms floating around at the same time.
Yes, in an atom we have both soft and hard particles. You can take away the soft-particles though, at least most of them.
Doesn't Cater define soft particles as being below the frequency of gamma?
They are made up of photons that have a frequency behavior below that of gamma. The soft particles themselves does not have a similar frequency behavior. Do you see the difference?
I've basically got it. I am going to go over all this and get it down pat.
DD
>Ok, I've been confusing soft particles with lower frequency particles. So
>soft particles are a counterpart to hard particles, it isn't a matter of
>higher and lower frequencies.
Yes and no! And that is what I think confuses you. Since the
frequency is the measurement we use today to keep one radiation apart
from another radiation it is easy to confuse the particles that make
up the radiation with the frequency of that radiation. What you call
"lower frequency particles" has no "frequency" behavior, but they
are made up of photons that have. It is that same with
"hard-particles". They are made up of photons above the gamma range,
but they themselves have no frequency behavior comparable to the
photons.
>
>Does this mean that each atom has both, or that there are soft particle
atoms and hrad particle atoms floating around at the same time.
Yes, in an atom we have both soft and hard particles. You can take
away the soft-particles though, at least most of them.
>
>Doesn't Cater define soft particles as being below the frequency of
gamma?
···
They are made up of photons that have a frequency behavior below
that of gamma. The soft particles themselves does not have a similar
frequency behavior. Do you see the difference?
Frode
>
>Dean
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email protected]
I've been meditating on the difference between hard and soft particles. Now
certain things that Cater said are making better sense, they are falling in
place.
Radiations exhibit frequency behavior, and are composed of particles.
Particles do not exhibit frequency behavior, but are composed of photons
which do exhibit frequency behavior.
Hard particles provide a sense of touch and are made up of photons which
have a frequency behavior in the gamma range or above.
Soft particles reflect light, and are composed of photons in the frequency
ranges below gamma. Soft particles provide no sense of touch.
I've been meditating on the difference between hard and soft particles. Now
certain things that Cater said are making better sense, they are falling in
place.
Radiations exhibit frequency behavior, and are composed of particles.
Try not to be so general. Photon radiation exhibit frequency behavior, but that is not necessary the case with al kind of radiations. Some radiations have a random spacing between particles. The periodic spacing between the photons gives the frequency. The spacing between photon-aggregates does not have this periodicity (this is due to how they are created), thus, they don't have a frequency nature. Try to get an understanding of what are meant with concepts like radiation an frequency. Be specific and work toward the general and then from the general towards the more specific. Think about the details and the context. Juggle all this in your head during a meditation until it fits perfectly with each other without any contradictions. Don't give up!!
Particles do not exhibit frequency behavior, but are composed of photons
which do exhibit frequency behavior.
Compare this sentence with the one above and you will see that you contradict yourself. To say that particles do not exhibit frequency behavior is too general. Photons are particles. The word "behavior" is maybe not a good word to use in this context, or maybe it is? Do you have any better word? You are the English teacher.
Hard particles provide a sense of touch and are made up of photons which
have a frequency behavior in the gamma range or above.
No comments here, except that "behavior" word again.
Soft particles reflect light, and are composed of photons in the frequency
ranges below gamma. Soft particles provide no sense of touch.
I think the sense of touch depends a little on your sensitivity. Have you not felt the energy coming out of a large quartz crystal? I am quite sure that that energy is due to soft particles.
Mr. Cater didn't feel that the book corresponded too much to the soft
particle model of the Earth, but the book may contain some truths.
Maybe Verne was the instrument of some early channeling that went on by some
group that wanted to familiarize us with the concept of a hollow planet
without giving out exact details or any scientific concepts above what we
are currently being fed.
Thank you for the kind words below. I am in line to do a radio show with a
Hindu audience some time in February, I got bumped back because of the
earthquake.
After Carnaval in Brazil, I am really going to start generating things here,
where I am. I want to do radio interviews here, have meetings and start a
hollow earth club. I have ideas on how to bring people together, and I nice
place to meet. Basically, I am going to pop some bucks myself and put some
ads in some new age magazines and call on people to attend a free HE
workshop. Once they're together, I am just going to tell people what's going
on. I think it could start off with a bang. You only run into impediments
when you start charging.
I think that all of us should start thinking along these lines. If one of
you starts something up and then gets challoeneged, the list is a resource
for you to fall back on with questions, and you can refer people's questions
to us, or ask yourself and then get back to them.
A couple balls of light are easy to extinguish, but many balls of light are
harder to extinguish.
An old saying goes:
If not me, then who?
If not now, then when?
I don't know why Dr. Richard Thonpson doesn't do more radio.
I am about to do up an orgone accumulator for water with denim and steel
wool. I know that the inner layer has to be organic, but does the outer
layer have to be? I can't stick steel wool on the outside. Could I can do
the outer layer with some aluminum foil?
Is a quart and a half plastic bottle big enough? Would a larger container
accept more charge, or would the charge become diluted?
I am about to do up an orgone accumulator for water with denim and steel
wool. I know that the inner layer has to be organic, but does the outer
layer have to be? I can't stick steel wool on the outside. Could I can do
the outer layer with some aluminum foil?
Check out the chapter on Rich in Cater's book. He recommended the inner layer to be of metal and the outer of organic material. This is a little difficult with a water bottle of course, unless the water bottle is of metal. I started with paper and then foil as Jeff did,ended with paper and covered that paper with tape.
Is a quart and a half plastic bottle big enough? Would a larger container
accept more charge, or would the charge become diluted?
Cater claim that a larger container will accept more charge. It should not be too small. Is that a 6 liter bottle or something? I made it out of a 5 liter bottle.
Check out the chapter on Rich in Cater's book. He recommended the
inner layer to be of metal and the outer of organic material. This is
a little difficult with a water bottle of course, unless the water
bottle is of metal. I started with paper and then foil as Jeff
did,ended with paper and covered that paper with tape.
Oh, ok, I had it backwards. I'll find a way to do the metal on the inside,
maybe I can wrap the bottle with aluminum foil.
>Is a quart and a half plastic bottle big enough? Would a larger container
>accept more charge, or would the charge become diluted?
Cater claim that a larger container will accept more charge. It
should not be too small. Is that a 6 liter bottle or something? I
made it out of a 5 liter bottle.
Frode
I can do 3.8 liters, that is the biggest jug I can find easily. They sell
pure spring wate in jugs that size.