Dean,
Good points and observations on all accounts. Too bad we have to rely on
third person speculation anyway. Hey, how about an excursion to the earth's
interior and we'll clear up all these matters! Anyone up for it? . . .
Wouldn't it be nice. . .
Norlan
Hey, how about an excursion to the earth's
interior and we'll clear up all these matters! Anyone up for it? . . .
Wouldn't it be nice. . .
Norlan
Do you want to go skiing too?
Frode
Norlan,
An excursion is somehing to consider, at least in the long run. You have to
consider the probability that it would be one-way, though.
I would still be interested in putting up any old articles analyzing the
Smokey God Story.
Dharma/Dean
Frode,
I'll ski if I have to, but there has to be a better way.
Firs we have to develop the invisible radiations and the other radiations
which I wrote you about.
Dean
ยทยทยท
Frode
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Frode,
I'll ski if I have to, but there has to be a better way.
Firs we have to develop the invisible radiations and the other radiations
which I wrote you about.Dean
Of course!
Frode
List Members,
Remember that you can peruse through old postings, in order to get some
background, at the controlling site of the list. First click here:
http://www.egroups.com/group/allplanets-hollow
Then click on " Messages," which is found on the left-hand column.
And there you are. You can access a certain posting by filling in where it
says " jump to."
For example, I would like to call your attention to post # 178. This post
was presented to illustrate the idea that the heat of the Sun does not have
to be a matter of a nuclear reaction. The heat is naturally generated by the
normal activities of the atoms in the interior; in a large globe, the
surface area is not sufficient enough to allow the heat to ventilate, hence
a buildup. Here are Cater's words from that post:
" The larger the body, the greater its mass or volume in proportion to its
surface area. This means that, as the size increases, it is less probable
that the energies produced by the normal activities of the atoms in the
body's interior will escape from the surface without a resultant increase in
the temperature of its surface." ( Page 185, The Awesome Life Force )
This is not so hard to pick up on this basic concept.
But what I want to additionally communicate is that this concept also
accounts for the heat which emanates from the giant, outer planets of the
solar system. This is a conundrum because those planets emit more heat than
they take in from the sun! Only if we factor in the heat which builds up
from the normal activities of the fundamental particles of the atoms within
these planets can we account for this phenomenon.
This constitues further evidence for the idea that the Sun is NOT a nuclear
process. The Sun could easily be a plasma body; a plasma is a super-heated
gas. This could account for the Sun's heat as well as the nature of its
rays. It is just unfortunate that we are conditioned to conceive of the sun
as a nuclear process.
By the way, if the sun of our solar system is not a nuclear sun, then why
would the inner sun of any planet be nuclear? I've made the points that a
fission inner sun could conceivably be fueled by some supply of hydrogen.
One would have to explain how the hydrogen accumulates in a ball in the
center of the inner cavity, and where the supply of hydrogen came from, but
it might be possible, except that the radiation from a fission process would
kill all life. Were the sun of the solar system a nuclear sun, sustained
life on our planet would also not be possible. A fusion sun within would not
kill all life, but would have to be fueled in the center of the inner sphere
by heavy water. How?
It is not likely that any sun is nuclear- this means that not only do
astronomers have to adjust a few concepts which they have, but a few schools
of hollow Earth thought might olso want to go through some introspective
revision.
Posted by Dharma/Dean
List Members,
Here is something from Jan Lamprecht, from Hollow Planets.
When it comes to cataloguing empiric evidence, he does a great job.
Posted by Dharma/Dean
Let's see if this attachment gets through. I am trying to send two with some
text, but they keep coming back because egroups has size limitations.
Dean
Hey All,
Scroll on down to where it says " here." .
>The Russians say the magnetic north pole runs along the Lomonosov Ridge
in a
>1500 mile arc around the geographic pole. They call it a Ridge because
that
>is where the ocean appears to be rather shallow compared to the
surrounding
>waters -- which would make sence if this is in fact the inside edge of
the
>rim. Centrifugal force would cause the water to thin on the inside edge
of
>the opening. But my question remains: Why does the magnetic pole shift
at
>all?
>NorlanNorlan
I don't get this. The ridge you talk about is not circular but strait
on my map. And the present magnetic pole is not situated on the ridge
at all. Does the Russians have any supporting data for this claim?Frode
Here is something on the matter on how the magnetic lines of force run from
the book The Hollow Earth, page 66; I have included the drawing as a
separate attachment. It seems that I can only get graphics through to
egroups by means of my Adobe Reader, which means I have to write separately.
Ray Palamer is being quoted in the book.
" We have available, in the form of records of several hundred years, in
Russian archives, a history of Arctic exploration which proves our most
important point beyond further question: i.e., that the North Magnetic
Pole is not a point, but (deduce the Russians) a `line' approximately 1000
miles long. Before we go further,
we might suggest that we think they are wrong in this deduction, and that
instead of being a line, it is actually a circle. Because of lack of space
to place it on the globe, the Russians have been forced to compress their
observations into a two dimensional area. They had to squeze the circle from
two sides and make a line out of it"
What Ray Palmer says about squeezing the circle from two sides can be seen
in the image from page 65 of the book, and a basic
idea of what the actual circle might look like, before they compress it on
their maps, can be seen in the drawing by Sadek Adam. In stead of an
absolute circle, I tend to feel that the opening would be an elongated oval,
following the basic line of the picture from page 67.
Norlan,
You ask why does the magnetic pole shift at all. Cater gives a basic answer
here. He seems to be saying that the low frequency electrons flowing out of
the inner sun, through the egress, exhibit a stronger flow where the
supposed magnetic pole is located, and that this point of stronger flow is
determined by the rotational velocity of the Earth. Maybe there are minute
fluctuations in this regard. I don't know if his newer book gives any
additional info in this regard. Maybe Frode can say.
Here are Cater's comments:
" In actuality, the so-called poles are not sharply defined. The lines along
which the inclination is very close to 90 degrees are quite extensive, and
follow a closed path around [ within ] the lip of each of the large egresses
into the hollow earth. The flow of ethers which produce the magnetic field
will follow the lines of least resistence, as is the case with a fluid.
Since these openings produce a void, so to speak, the flow of ethers
concentrated in the higher latitudes [ of the inner shell ], will
concentrate at these openings. The concentration of soft electrons at any
area fluctuates. Consequently, the so-called magnetic pole will also have a
tendency to shift.
A high concentration of soft electrons is radiated out of the openings from
the interior. This means an inordinate concentration exists around the
openings. Since the openings are not located at the geographic poles, they
will assume the rotational velocity of the Earth in these areas. Therefore,
an additional magnetic field will be produced in these regions and in the
same direction as the general flow of ethers."
List Members, September 9, 2000
The other day I sent around a piece from Jan Lamprecht's book called When
the Inner Sun Shines, suggesting, if not stating, that the inner sun
illuminates the dark side of the Moon during eclipses. This seems to be the
case, even Mr. Cater mentioned this in his book, although he did not at all
gather together the kind of testimony that Jan did.
He does, however, indicate the mechanism by which the inner sunlight gets
beamed onto the dark side of the moon, that so-elusive mechanism.
First of all, it is important to remember that Cater defines the light rays
leaving the orifice as consisting of low-fequency, invisible photon
aggregates, which contain a visible electron inside, " Pac-man " style, as
Frode Kvisle says.
It is possible for the photon aggregates of these rays to pass through the
Earth's orifices without disintegrating. They only break up and liberate the
visible electron inside, and form the auroral display when: there is a
buildup of aggregates within the cavity and sunspot activity. Sunspot
activity causes other invisible photon aggregates from the sun to pass
through the shell and propel the photon aggregates, already built up within
the cavity, to pass through the orifices at a greater rate.
The question is, how do these rays then happen to be focused exactly on the
Moon. Some have suggested refraction, but that would be quite a feat to
refract the light of the inner sun and aim it directly at the dark side of
the moon.
Without understanding the nature of an invisible, low frequency photon
aggregate, with a visible electron inside, we can't even account for the
fact that no light is typically perceived leaving the orifice, yet the dark
side of the Moon often shows illumination, even ocre illumination, which can
't be accounted for by Earthshine. And this doesn't only happen during
auroral displays. So it actually isn't a question of saying " When the Inner
Sun Shines," but rather, of realizing that the inner sun always shines
through the orifices. But I digress.
The reason why the invisible inner sunlight gets directly beamed onto the
Moon's darker half at eclipse time is given on page 262 of The Awesom Life
Force: " What actually happens is that the Moon seems to momentarily block
out the flow of soft electrons to the eclipsed area. This creates a void,
which creates a subsequent flow of soft electrons to the area from all
sides. "
First of all, let's assume that, if the Earth's inner sun produces low
frequency, invisible electrons, then the Moon's inner sun does the same.
What does any sun produce? Electrons; it is just that we can perceive the
electrons of the sun of our solar system. ( By the way electrons, by
definition, have a negative charge )
And know that the magnetic node of the Moon is on the longitude of the Sun
or Moon at eclipse time. This seems to suggest a supression of the magnetic
lines of force, which is what the electrons, from the inner sun, use to
follow out and envelope the Moon, so to speak. Some kind of magnetic
supression, therefore, can account for the block of the flow of invisible
electrons/photons to the eclipsed area.
And then, as Mr. Cater mentioned, this creates a flow to fill in the void
and take their place. The low frequency photon aggragates from the Earth's
inner sun become attracted right to the spot- bulleye. Actually, Mr. Cater
says that the electrons and photns flow to the eclipsed area " from all
sides." This could be in recognition that such photon aggregates exist in
all space- they are the cosmic rays. So soft photon aggregates, which are
not directly flowing from the Earth's inner sun, could be involved, too.
But then how do light photons illuminate the Moon if they are invisible?
Well, remember that it is a photon aggregate which contains a visible
electron within. Due to friction with the Moon's atmosphere upon entering,
the photon aggregate breaks up and releases the visible eletron, thus
illuminating the dark side of the Moon!
Two questions arise: why is the light often perceived as ocre and what is
this business about the Moon's atmosphere? ( NASA never told us that )
The ocre tint can be accounted for by the fact that the visible electron
hidden within the photon aggregate experiences what Cater calls a
redistribution of energy upon reaching the atmosphere of the Moon. The
electron interacts with the fundamental particles of the Moon's atmosphere,
at which time lower and lower frequencies are produced. The ultimate result
is a reddish tint to the light.
Here is something that Cater says on page 156 of The Awesome Life Force in
this regard:
" THE LAW OF REDISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY
A more penetrating look at the law of redistribution of energy discussed
earlier is now in order. Briefly, it states that when light interacts with
matter, new light results with a lower average frequency than the original
light. One of the simplest demonstrations of this law is done with the use
of light filters. For example a light beam in the blue or violet end of the
visible spectrum, after passing through a series of filters, regard-less of
the types, will always emerge from the last one as red light, providing a
sufficient number of [ filters ] are used. These filters could be all blue,
violet or any other combination. "
The same thing happens to the morning light. It passes through so much of
the Earth's atmosphere that it, too, undergoes a redistribution of frequency
and appears reddish- also at sunset.
On page 235, Cater denies the traditional explanation for the so-called
scattering of light by the atmosphere, by which our sky is blue and sunlight
reddish at dusk and dawn:
" According to physicists, the blue results from the scattering of blue
light by dust particles in the atmosphere. If this idea were valid, then all
dust particles would have to be nearly uniform in size to be so partial to
blue. This would be a mbst extraordinary coincidence, violating all of the
rule of probability. At any rate, why doesn't the remaining light from which
the blue was extracted create odd color effects, and why doesn't; the
spectrum produced by rainbows and prisms indicate a shortage of blues? Of
course, there is the other difficulty in explaining the process by. which
light can collide with any particle and scatter only the blue light. "
As far as the atmosphere of the Moon is concerned, there is an Apollo
picture showing glare on the horizon of the Moon. This could only be
accounted for by an atmosphere. Actually, there are several photos of clouds
on the surface of the Moon. I've seen one on the David Hatcher Childress
video where a cloud is fingering its way through some hills or mountains on
the Moon. Such phenomena is tyically referred to as Transient Lunar
Phenomena, not atmospheric phenomena, because Never A Straight Answer doesn'
t want to admit that the Moon has enough gravity to retain an atmosphere.
But the Moon does have strong gravity, stronger than the Sun's gravity.
Cater explains that this can be seen by the fact that, even though the Sun
is supposed to have greater gravity than the Moon, the Moon is closer- the
two have the same apparent diameter, more or less, from our point of view.
When these differences are averaged out, their gravitational effect should
be similar. Even so, the Moon exhibits a tremendous amount of gravitational
force on the tides compared to the Sun.
And remember that, if gravity is caused by electrostatic charge, as Mr.
Cater outlines so well, then all planets will have similar gravitational
pull as the gravity charge will typically penetrate 50 miles before
beginning to diminish. Below that level, a planet has little weight. Above
that level, the gravity layer is the same for all planets- about 50 miles of
penetration.
It seems that the Sun has the greater gravity, in order to keep the planets
in orbit. But actually, it is the electrostatic gravity charge, created
within a planet, that keeps it in orbit. Remeber that the planet does not
have the weight which we are typically told. Weight is not associated with
mass nor density. The same thing happens to the morning light. It passes
through so much of the Earth's atmosphere that it, too, undergoes a
redistribution of frequency and appears reddish- also at sunset.
Therefore, the Moon has a greater gravitational effect on the tides, and the
Moon also has sufficient gravity to retain na atmosphere. Therefore, what is
labeled by our friends at NASA and ALPO as " outgassing " and Transient
Lunar Phenomena is actually visiual evidence of the atmosphere, retained by
the Moon's gravity
Posted by Dean De Lucia
List Members,
Here is that famous picture of glare on the horizon of the Moon. Glare can
only be caused by an atmosphere, i.e., the light is being scatttered by a
medium.
Dharma/Dean