Re: [allplanets-hollow] Jupiter's particles' route
···
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:04:25 -0700 Dick Fojut [email protected] writes:
** "THE SUN'S TEMPERATURE.** Scientific works that are orthodox tell us that the sun is "an exceedingly hot, super-heated body"
Herschel (the great scientist) did not agree with the orthodox. He wrote: "The sun may be a cool body." From the various works written about the sun which I have studied, the impression is left that scientists have based their opinions that the sun's body has a very high temperature **from readings of the spectrum** and on the erroneous belief that: "The sun disperses her heat throughout the solar system." and "The earth's heat comes directly from the sun."
They have made no study to determine what heat is, nor its manner of working. Their writings must therefore be what they are, mere guesses, and very erroneous at that. I have heretofore devoted a section to heat, showing what it is, whence it emanates and how it works. We meet phenomena at every step showing most conclusively that ** our heat does not come from the sun but is an earthly force**. Another phenomenon which confirms the fact that we do not derive our heat directly from the sun, and that the sun does not distribute its heat throughout the solar system, as is being taught today in our educational establishments, is shown during the earth's elliptical orbit.
I will take the northern hemisphere as an example. Twice during the year the sun is millions of miles nearer the earth than at other times. During the fall and spring the sun is millions of miles nearer the earth than in the summer. If the sun is the source of heat, when the earth is millions of miles nearer the source we ought to experience a higher temperature during the spring and fall, but do we? We do not! We experience a middle temperature, clearly proving that our heat does not come **directly** from the sun, thus bearing out the writings that have been handed down to us from the first great civilization.
The deduction that the sun is an exceedingly hot super heated body has been determined by the spectroscope. This in itself is the greatest absurdity because ** the spectroscope does not register temperatures** . It cannot, because it does not register the rays which carry the heat force. This I personally have proved in a court of law as an expert witness. Our scientists in their writings about the sun have totally ignored the natural workings of the forces. Nature's tools and means have been cast to the winds."
In other sections Churchward discusses the mistake astronomers make ** assuming the temperatures of distant bodies by the COLOR and luminosity they see through their telescopes** . I won't go into it here except to note that the SAME COLOR Ray from molten steel over 2500 degrees is duplicated with the SAME Ray coming from a FIREFLY at less than atmospheric temperature.. Because of similar contradictions he pointed out, Churchward suggested that many of the calculations orthodox astronomers have made about the temperatures of distant bodies (and red shift distances) may need **revision**.
How's that for slipping around an answer about Jupiter?
- Dick
Dick,
- I too have read the writings of MU and I take exception to some of the stuff you stated in* * regards to the temperature of the Sun, Earth and where that heat comes from. You state above that* * the Sun is closest to us in spring and fall or two times a year and that the distance is millions of miles* * difference. You are only partly correct. It is true that the Sun is closest to us but the time of the year* * that this happens is during the winter solstice. It is farthest away during the summer solstice. The Earth orbits the moon in the shape of an ellipse and there is only one nearest and one farthest approach to the primary (The Sun) during any single orbit.*
- It does seem superficially correct what you state about* * the temperatures being highest during the times that the Earth* * is furthest away but that you are missing a key factor. The earth is on an axial tilt of 22.5 degrees. This* * means that irregardless of the distance to the Sun, the hemisphere, North or South, that is more perpendicular to the rays from the Sun is the one that ends up being warmer. A test for your scenario* * would be difficult if not impossible to test, being that the closer one is to the Sun the warmer it will be,* * all other factors being the same. As you know the southern hemisphere alternates with the northern in* * which one enjoys the warm summer months. One might compare summer south to summer north a half* * year apart to see if some difference could be detected at similar displacement north and south from the* * equator. This is also problematic since as you also know the northern hemisphere is by far holding the* * greater amount of land area. Like the way England is warmed by the northern gulf stream to* * temperatures contrary to what their latitude should suggest, the southern and northern land areas most* * likely do not mirror each other making a case study of latitude temperature highly problematic.*
- As to the Mu theory of things, regarding temperature, there might be something to it, but your*
- analogies leave something to be desired. They are too easy to poke holes into as I have just done. I found it interesting in the Churchward books that he compares temperatures on mountain tops with*
- very low temperatures and using this analogy of distance to the Sun suggests that distance makes no*
- difference. My aim here is not to claim him wrong since there are some very interesting points he brings*
- out that might be right. His analogies are NOT finely tuned scientific examples where all factors have*
- been accounted for. The thinner atmosphere far more than the space of a distance of the mountains*
- height above typical land elevations is much more able to describe why it is cold on mountain tops in*
- direct sunlight. His idea as I recall not having gone over the Mu books in some time was the idea that*
- the Sun has a force and that there are force(s) that are earth forces. Some phenomena occur only after*
- a combination of force or forces from both combine to produce an effect. That is his theory and I even*
- can buy into these ideas somewhat in light of the curiosities we find in nature. Why for instance do the*
- pictures form space only show the Earth and a black void everywhere else. Is the light force only apparent after combining with an Earth force such as atmosphere? The moon is claimed to be airless*
- and if atmosphere were required to have a light force evident, then that might explain why we see no*
- stars. The problem with these ideas though is that for the Hubble space telescope to work one would need to have the light from distant stars encounter an air or atmospheric force to combine with and it*
- stands to reason that there is no air in orbit by the Hubble. One reason why it might be that we see*
- no stars in the pictures from the space shuttle is that the film is no sensitive enough, though I cannot*
- imagine why they wouldn't use sensitive film, or that the contrast of light from the Earth overshadows*
- by contrast the light form the stars. I don't particularly buy this idea since one can be on the earth in*
- late afternoon and see the Moon and the first few glimmerings of stars before nightfall has fallen. I*
- can't imagine how one could not see stars more clearly on the moon than on Earth. The atmosphere,*
- if it is really there at all as some might suggest, would be thinner and pictures that are supposed to be*
- our astronauts on the surface of the Moon show at times even a dim landscape. The Moon rotates*
- at just the right speed to keep its face toward the Earth at all times. This doesn't mean that all Lunar*
- landings took place during a point of Lunar orbit that kept the landing site in full sunlight all the time.*
- If the Sun was not always "overhead" then there is that much less reason to state that the stars were*
not visible because of being drowned out by the Sun.
Scott