[allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accepted Earth Model

Dick,
It is apparent that this List gang has not picked up Churchward's
works. You do so well in interpreting his tenents. I read all his
works and in one of his works he goes into the history of Very ancient
symbology that clearly supports the Lumuria/Mu contention. Keep kicking
Dick, maybe they'll get this yet, in the meantime I hope you don't
destroy your keyboard responding! Happy Easter....
ps/lv

···

From: Dick Fojut <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accepted Earth Model
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:36:37 -0700

Dean,

Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?

Here she question the current accepted Earth Model (page 119):

" This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of
sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some
4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was in a
molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density
of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the
inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction
and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer layer
of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.

Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of
materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the
earth's interior?"

Frode... From (non-"scientist") Dick Fojut. I don't know what Dean is
going to reply, but I must! That typical "scientific" gibberish needs
commenting on. Here's another dissertation. Quit now if you can't go
on...

In my eyes the above "Earth Model" is "junk science"
The "currently accepted Earth model" the author mentions may be an
"accepted" THEORY but it is still just a THEORY... unproven
conjecture, an imaginary concept.... not a proven fact. I don't give
a hoot how many "I like to be orthodox" university professors embrace
that gibberish. In my opinion, it is just ridiculous mumble-jumble by
kindergarten thinkers. Unfortunately the above doesn't give us
Spoiler's version. Too bad for the moment.

But some of these terms really turn me off.... "law of sedimentation
in a centrifuge"? And how do they know the earth was in a molten
state and rotating faster than it is today? Because they IMAGINE it
was rotating faster? "rotating for 4.5 billion years"? How did they
time it? Just conjecture. Typical "scientists," they throw out words
like BILLIONS (even TRILLIONS) because it impresses the public.

"the inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear reaction" Bunk!
Recall the PBS astronomy series I mentioned watching 30 years back.
If there was an imagined nuclear reaction going on in the center of
our Sun, huge quantities of NEUTRINOS, theoretically, should have
been produced and radiated outward toward Earth. But the equipment in
a deep mine Scientists had set up, recorded very few neutrinos over
many years. Because of this, the commenting university scientist
expressed doubt that nuclear reactions were HOW the Sun is generating
its "energy." We just don't know, he said. Further, he commented - as
I recall - (presumably speaking for all scientists in general) "We
have to re-think our ideas about what is happening in the Sun." How
quickly that was forgotten by "Science!" Except by listeners like me.

And HOW does such a "nuclear reaction" keep our planet rotating? Just
how? I get the impression some of these "scientists" just burble out
words that SOUND scientific, but are so UNimaginative they can't even
PICTURE what is supposed to happen with their words.

Compare the above with James Churchward about HOW Earth is rotated.
(Yes, again)... He described the Sun's magnetic Forces as attracting
(pulling) out affinitive Forces held in Earth's crust, its (battery)
"storage house." At dawn, the Sun's more powerful magnetic Forces
carried by its rays, pulled Earth's forces saturating the dawn
quadrant of the crust, out into Earth's atmosphere.

The Earth's "central" magnet (an area many miles down in the crust)
unsuccessfully resisted, trying to HOLD ON to its Forces, and holding
on found its dawn surface pulled along, DRAGGED ALONG BY SLIPPAGE,
trying to hold on... ROTATING forward. According to Churchward our
Sun has NO direct magnetic control over Earth's ELEMENTS (and
surface) only a special magnetic PULLING affinity for similar
magnetic Forces stored in the crust. One special set of the Sun's
magnetic forces have only one function, to DRAW out Earth's forces
that are saturating the crust, out into the atmosphere.

Once Earth's many Forces are pulled free from the crust and have
saturated the atmospheric elements' HOLDING capacity for Forces,
those specialized magnetic drawing forces from the Sun lose any
sustained grip.... and other of the Sun's magnetic forces take
charge. Certain affinitive forces agitate Earth's LIGHT forces into
activity and we have light. Other of the Sun's affinitive forces
agitate Earth's HEAT forces into activity and we have heat. And
multitudes of Nature's other specialized forces go into movement, the
Sun's forces "marrying" and agitating them.

(Yes, if you agree with Churchward, the "Great Designer" has assigned
special duties to every vibrating, unseen force emanating from
Himself, the Creator... the one great Primary "force" in the
universe.)

The pulled along, rotation of Earth's first quadrant exposes the next
surface quadrant to the Sun's drawing rays... repeating what
happened to the first quadrant. Each appearing dawn quadrant is
pulled along, rotated. And so it has been and will ever more
continue as long as we have the Sun. Each dawn quadrant of the
surface is drawn along, trying to hold on to its forces, and ROTATED.

Now whether you accept the above scenario (and hopefully picture it)
or not, it is at least logical and it functions. One can picture each
dawn surface quadrant being magnetically "pulled" along (as if on a
string) and rotated. But what picture does "nuclear reaction keeps
our planet rotating." show your mind? A bit incomplete, isn't it?

Just a few comments I felt were proper to make. Thanks for reading.

- Dick Fojut in Tucson

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current
accept

Dick,

It is apparent that this List gang has not picked up Churchward's

works. You do so well in interpreting his tenents. I read
all his

works and in one of his works he goes into the history of Very
ancient

symbology that clearly supports the Lumuria/Mu contention. Keep
kicking

Dick, maybe they'll get this yet, in the meantime I hope you don't

destroy your keyboard responding! Happy Easter....

ps/lv

Paul,

You're too kind. Thanks for support. I hope
other readers get interested. I never gave really serious
consideration
to an inhabited Hollow Earth until hearing
Lamprecht on Punnet's Sunday night Coast to Coast program.Naturally I began attempting (and still am) to RECONCILE what I know
about James Churchward's unique views, with my (admittedly scant)
newer understanding about the HE. Lamprecht's view. Dean's view.
Cater's view. And the varying views of several group members
.
Really stimulating stuff the rest of society is missing.

Won't go into another "dissertation" and tire
everybody. BUT, although I today think old Churchward
DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH and look into what might NOW be going
on in Earth's HOLLOW center
(AND the HOLLOW centers of ALL
planets "REVOLVING on an axis" - and thus "LIVE" planets,
in his definition) his explanation about HOW Earth was originally
constructed, lends credence to the very existence of an HE.

As you know, Paul, Churchward claimed that
ALL that knowledge he presented about Earth's physical creation
was perfectly known to Earth's ancient scientists and even the
common people,
at least 70,000 years back. He maintained
(modestly) that all he had done was TRANSLATE ancient stone tablets
stored in certain Indian and Tibetan monasteries, into English so
people could re-understand today. It is up to each reader to decide
whether that remarkable thinker accurately translated such ancient
knowledge - or just INVENTED it. But if he did just
"invent" the scientific and religious teachings of MU, it is even
more remarkable in my opinion, because it is BRILLIANT
invention.

  • Dick Fojut
···

From: Dick Fojut [email protected]

Reply-To: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current accepted
Earth

Model

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:36:37 -0700

Dean,

Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?

Here she question the current accepted Earth Model (page
119):

" This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent
with the law of

sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating
for some

4.5 billion years. When it was first formed , the earth was
in a

molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest
density

of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except
for the

inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a nuclear
reaction

and which keeps our planet rotating, The density of the outer
layer

of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.

Also heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could
so much of

materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated
in the

earth's interior?"

Frode... From (non-"scientist") Dick Fojut. I don't
know what Dean is

going to reply, but I must! That typical "scientific"
gibberish needs

commenting on. Here's another dissertation. Quit now if you can't
go

on...

In my eyes the above "Earth Model" is "junk
science"

The "currently accepted Earth model" the author
mentions may be an

"accepted" THEORY but it is still just a THEORY...
unproven

conjecture, an imaginary concept.... not a proven fact. I
don't give

a hoot how many "I like to be orthodox" university
professors embrace

that gibberish. In my opinion, it is just ridiculous
mumble-jumble by

kindergarten thinkers. Unfortunately the above doesn't give us

Spoiler's version. Too bad for the moment.

But some of these terms really turn me off.... "law of
sedimentation
in a centrifuge"? And how
do they know the earth was in a molten

state and rotating faster than it is today? Because they IMAGINE
it

was rotating faster? "rotating for 4.5 billion years"?
How did they

time it? Just conjecture. Typical "scientists," they
throw out words

like BILLIONS (even TRILLIONS) because it impresses the
public.

"the inner core, which houses the engine, powered by a
nuclear reaction"

Bunk!

Recall the PBS astronomy series I mentioned watching 30 years
back.

If there was an imagined nuclear reaction going on in the center
of

our Sun, huge quantities of NEUTRINOS, theoretically, should
have

been produced and radiated outward toward Earth. But the
equipment in

a deep mine Scientists had set up, recorded very few neutrinos
over

many years. Because of this, the commenting university
scientist

expressed doubt that nuclear reactions were HOW the Sun is
generating

its "energy." We just don't know, he said. Further, he
commented - as

I recall - (presumably speaking for all scientists in general)
"We

have to re-think our ideas about what is happening in the
Sun." How

quickly that was forgotten by "Science!" Except
by listeners like me.

And HOW does such a "nuclear reaction" keep our planet
rotating? Just

how? I get the impression some of these "scientists"
just burble out

words that SOUND scientific, but are so UNimaginative they can't
even

PICTURE what is supposed to happen with their words.

Compare the above with James Churchward about HOW Earth is
rotated.

(Yes, again)... He described the Sun's magnetic Forces as
attracting

(pulling) out affinitive Forces held in Earth's crust, its
(battery)

"storage house." At dawn, the Sun's more powerful
magnetic Forces

carried by its rays, pulled Earth's forces saturating the dawn

quadrant of the crust, out into Earth's atmosphere.

The Earth's "central" magnet (an area many miles down
in the crust)

unsuccessfully resisted, trying to HOLD ON to its Forces, and
holding

on found its dawn surface pulled along, DRAGGED ALONG BY
SLIPPAGE,

trying to hold on... ROTATING forward. According to
Churchward our

Sun has NO direct magnetic control over Earth's ELEMENTS (and

surface) only a special magnetic PULLING affinity for similar

magnetic Forces stored in the crust. One special set of the
Sun's

magnetic forces have only one function, to DRAW out Earth's
forces

that are saturating the crust, out into the atmosphere.

Once Earth's many Forces are pulled free from the crust and
have

saturated the atmospheric elements' HOLDING capacity for
Forces,

those specialized magnetic drawing forces from the Sun lose
any

sustained grip.... and other of the Sun's magnetic forces take

charge. Certain affinitive forces agitate Earth's LIGHT forces
into

activity and we have light. Other of the Sun's affinitive
forces

agitate Earth's HEAT forces into activity and we have heat.
And

multitudes of Nature's other specialized forces go into movement,
the

Sun's forces "marrying" and agitating them.

(Yes, if you agree with Churchward, the "Great
Designer" has assigned

special duties to every vibrating, unseen force emanating from

Himself, the Creator... the one great Primary "force"
in the

universe.)

The pulled along, rotation of Earth's first quadrant exposes the
next

surface quadrant to the Sun's drawing rays... repeating
what

happened to the first quadrant. Each appearing dawn quadrant
is

pulled along, rotated. And so it has been and will ever
more

continue as long as we have the Sun. Each dawn quadrant of the

surface is drawn along, trying to hold on to its forces, and
ROTATED.

Now whether you accept the above scenario (and hopefully picture
it)

or not, it is at least logical and it functions. One can picture
each

dawn surface quadrant being magnetically "pulled" along
(as if on a

string) and rotated. But what picture does "nuclear reaction
keeps

our planet rotating." show your mind? A bit incomplete,
isn't it?

Just a few comments I felt were proper to make. Thanks for
reading.

  • Dick Fojut in Tucson

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer
at http://explorer.msn.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos