[allplanets-hollow] Olaf's description of the inner sun

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
1

Dean,

According to Olaf...

""The Smoky God," therefore, with each daily revolution of the earth,
appears
to come up in the east and go down in the west the same as does our sun on
the external surface."

When I first read The Smoky God, this was the text that caused me to cast
doubt on the whole story. Obviously, it would be impossible for the inner
sun to rise or set, or even appear to rise or set. I also find the reference
to stars rather hard to swallow. I suppose it's possible that the narrator
misunderstood something when relating the tale. While I really want to
believe Olaf's tale, I'm not inclined to accept any science based on second
hand observations from the narrator. Meaning, I'd rather believe Cater's
science than Olaf's narrator. On the other hand, if what we read in the
Smoky God is accurate, the inner sun must operate on physics level that we
don't understand or haven't considered.

Blake

ยทยทยท

-----Original Message-----
From: dean [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [allplanets-hollow] Olaf's description of the inner sun

Norlan,

When I wrote to Cater about a nighttime in the hollow Earth, he wasn't very
big on the idea. He kind of left open a possibility, though:

" The side of the central sun facing the real sun will receive slightly more
particles from the inner shell than from the opposite side. As a result,
that side might be brighter than the opposite side." This could account for
some kind of nighttime, although maybe not a pitch black nighttime like we
have. I mean, Olaf described the brightness of their day as two full moons
of light, so their nighttime could be maybe one full moon, who knows.

In this first description of the inner sun, from within, the tone of the
narration doesn't break stride or change really.

" In the meantime we had lost sight of the sun's rays, but we found a
radiance 'within ' emanating from the dull-red sun which had already
attracted our attention, now giving out a white light seemingly from a
cloud-bank far away in front of us. It dispensed a greater light, I should
say, than two full moons on the clearest night. In twelve hours this cloud
of whiteness would pass out of sight as if eclipsed, and the twelve hours
following corresponded with our night. We early learned that these strange
people were worshipers of this great cloud of light. It was ' The Smoky God
' of the ' Inner World.'".

In the second description, he breaks the storyline to give a brief, simple
explanation of gravity, but I don't know if I would conclude that it was
here where the narrator got involved. I mean, the short explanation which he
gave, just in one sentence, contains a concept about gravity which current
science soundly rejects, but which is much in keeping with Cater's concept-
Olaf reported that gravity does, in fact, exhibit repulsion. Now, how did he
know that? And why would the narrator have said such a shocking,
unacceptable thing if he were trying to water down the story and make it
more acceptable. That litle explanation about gravity, explaining why the
central sun stays in place, simply made it more difficult for the modern
mind to accept.

Cater's musings above leave open the possibility of a darker side and a
type of night, so it might have just been this which was meant by Olaf.

I do not discard the possibility, though, that the narrator tried to make
the narration more palatable in some places, maybe even with Olaf's
approval. I mean, for the rigid mindsets of those times, and given the
treatment that Olaf had when he initially tried to communicate his
experience, maybe they felt they had a reason to tone it down. For example,
the name of Olaf's guide, Jules Galea, sounds very Westernised. But I'll
have to get a hold of a person who knows Sanskrit ( anybody? ) and ask
about some of the vocabulary used, because Olaf reported that their language
was similar to Sanskrit.

Dharma/Dean

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

2

Dean,

According to Olaf...

""The Smoky God," therefore, with each daily revolution of the earth,
appears
to come up in the east and go down in the west the same as does our sun on
the external surface."
When I first read The Smoky God, this was the text that caused me to cast
doubt on the whole story. Obviously, it would be impossible for the inner
sun to rise or set, or even appear to rise or set. I also find the

reference

to stars rather hard to swallow.

Blake,

If you change the words for get light in the East and Dark in the West, then
the text isn't so problematic in view of Cater's physics. One side of the
inner sun, the side facing away from the sun of the solar system, would get
dimmer. This is because the stream of photon aggragates, which feeds it by
filtering through the shell, would be diminished. So one side would be
darker.

I found the part, about what seemed to be stars, hard to swallow, too. But
remember, he was a kid at the time, he didn't speak their language so well,
not after two years, I mean, really! And he was writing in his old age from
memory. In fact, he dictated the book from his notes while on his death bed.

He did mention that the stars were wider. That suggests to me that the dark
side of the inner sun gets " burned out " at night, like deep embers below
the ashes in a fire place. Some light still peeps through holes in the ashes
and casts a beam or two across the room against the walls. Maybe in some
kind of similar way, the dimmer, half burned-out inner sun still projects a
few stray points of light.

I suppose it's possible that the narrator

misunderstood something when relating the tale. While I really want to
believe Olaf's tale, I'm not inclined to accept any science based on

second

hand observations from the narrator. Meaning, I'd rather believe Cater's
science than Olaf's narrator.

But Cater didn't absolutely deny the possibility, and even suggested how one
side of the sun would get dimmer when faced away from the photon stream,
away from the Sun of the solar system.

In other words, the type of sun which Cater outlines accomodates Olaf's
description without too much problem.

You just have to define what night is, how dark, and what is meant by stars
that were " wider." Do you see what I'm saying? In the first place, Olaf
didn't describe a pitch black night. We even say " nighttime " on the
surface when the Moon is out. I have read at night under the moon. An inner
sun which only gets dimmer than THEIR daytime, which was only as bright as
two full moons anyway, is not hard to imagine. The particle stream from the
outer sun slackens on the night side, and then that side of the inner sun
gets dimmer, and Olaf calls it nighttime.

I'm not just stretching things- if you understand Cater's model for an inner
sun, then you'll see how it is possible. Even Cater wouldn't deny the
possibility.

On the other hand, if what we read in the

Smoky God is accurate, the inner sun must operate on physics level that we
don't understand or haven't considered.

Cater's physics covers it. I don't think you caught my original post exactly
right.

This is some great discussion, by the way. I have never witnessed this type
of discussion on Olaf or the inner sun. It's high time.

Dharma/Dean