Dean,
Just a point of clarification. The cavity remaining in the interior of the
earth with an 1800 mile crust would be 4400 miles in diameter. The 600 mile
diameter central core, or sun, resides in the midst of that 4400 miles,
leaving the 1900 miles of distance remaining on all sides of this central
entity to the inside surface of the crust.
Norlan
This discription and explanation of Olaf's corresponds in many respects with Mr. Cater's explanation of the Searl effect .
" we were taken overland ... in a conveyance different from anything we have in Europe or America. This vehicle was doubtless some electrical contrivance. It was noiseless, and ran on a single iron rail in perfect balance. The trip was made at a very high rate of speed. We were carried up hills and down dales, across valleys and again along the sides of steep mountains, without any apparent attempt having been made to level the earth as we do for railroad tracks. The car seats were huge yet comfortable affairs, and very high above the floor of the car. On the top of each car were high geared fly wheels lying on their sides, which were so automatically adjusted that, as the speed of the car increased, the high speed of these fly wheels geometrically increased. Jules Galdea explained to us that these revolving fan-like wheels on top of the cars destroyed atmospheric pressure, or what is generally understood by the term gravitation, and with this force thus destroyed or rendered nugatory the car is as safe from falling to one side or to other from the single ray track as if it were in a vacuum; the fly wheels in their rapid revolutions destrying effectually the so-called power of gravitation, or the force of atmospheric pressure or whatever potent influence it may be that causes all unsupported things to fall downward to the earth's surface or to the nearest point of resistance."
Cater on Searl:
Posted by Dharma/Dean
List Members,
In support of Olaf's testimony and Mr. Cater's comments, our friend Frode has turned us on to this web page: http://www.cobb.com/gyro/
It is self-explanatory, you all.
Dharma/Dean
This discription and explanation of Olaf's corresponds in many respects with Mr. Cater's explanation of the Searl effect .
" we were taken overland ... in a conveyance different from anything we have in Europe or America. This vehicle was doubtless some electrical contrivance. It was noiseless, and ran on a single iron rail in perfect balance. The trip was made at a very high rate of speed. We were carried up hills and down dales, across valleys and again along the sides of steep mountains, without any apparent attempt having been made to level the earth as we do for railroad tracks. The car seats were huge yet comfortable affairs, and very high above the floor of the car. On the top of each car were high geared fly wheels lying on their sides, which were so automatically adjusted that, as the speed of the car increased, the high speed of these fly wheels geometrically increased. Jules Galdea explained to us that these revolving fan-like wheels on top of the cars destroyed atmospheric pressure, or what is generally understood by the term gravitation, and with this force thus destroyed or rendered nugatory the car is as safe from falling to one side or to other from the single ray track as if it were in a vacuum; the fly wheels in their rapid revolutions destrying effectually the so-called power of gravitation, or the force of atmospheric pressure or whatever potent influence it may be that causes all unsupported things to fall downward to the earth's surface or to the nearest point of resistance."
Cater on Searl:
“ The Searl effect is deeply involved with the behavior of everything that spins on an axis. Consider the spinning top or gyro. Conventional science has never come up with anything even remotely resembling an explanation concerning its behavior. Physicists try to create the iilusion that they understand it and camouflage their ignorance with nebulous descriptions of its action accompanied by meaningless equations. A precessing gyro actually confutes the basic foundations of conventional physics. For example, as it precesses, its center of mass extends well beyond its point of contact with the surface. It should tip over according to all the rules of academic physics. What force prevents it? Also the moment of inerta increases with the RPM, a property which is utilized for stabilizers. Also, according to the ‘ laws ‘ of orthodox physics, the moment of inertia is constant.
The explanation becomes almost self-evident in the light of the principles already expounded upon. AT A CRITICAL RPM, THE OUTER RIM BECOMES HEAVILY CHARGED NEGATIVELY, WHILE THE PORTION CLOSER TO THE CENTER OF MASS BEGINS TO TAKE ON A POSITIVE CHARGE. THE RIM TENDS TO BE REPELLED UPWARDS BY THE EARTH’S GRAVITY. The total effect is a counterclockwise motion about the point of contact, which counterbalances the clockwise torque tending to tip it over.
The greater tendency for a rotating body to maintain its plane of rotation, which produces a stabilizing effect, is a result of the increase in the moment of inertia. The outer portion is given a total negative charge which is greater than that of its original positive when it was at rest. This means that the mass comprising the outer portion has a greater overall inertia than it had before. This portion of greatly increased inertia is also further removed from the center of mass than the rest of the body which accentuates the moment of inertia and also the portion closer to the center of mass or rotation has a higher net positive charge than it had before. This means that its inertial properties have also increased which also adds to the moment of inertia. “
Posted by Dharma/Dean
` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]`
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
Our man Olaf describes his father's reasoning for the opposing winds:
" After our giant brothers had launched our little craft for us, they were most cordially regretful at parting, and evinced much solicitude for our safety. My father swore by the Gods Odin and Thor that he would surely return again within a year or two and pay them another visit. And thus we bade them adieu. We made ready and hoisted our sail, but there was little breeze. We were becalmed within an hour after our giant friends had left us and started on their return trip. The winds were constantly blowing south, that is, they were blowing from northern opening of the earth toward that which we knew to be south, but which, according to our compass's pointing finger, was directly north. For three days we tried to sail, and to beat against the wind, but to no avail. Whereupon my father said: "My son, to return by the same route as we came in is impossible at this time of year. I wonder why we did not think of this before. We have been here almost two and a half years; therefore, this is the season when the sun is beginning to shine in at the southern opening of the earth. The long cold night is on in the Spitzbergen country." "What shell we do?" I inquired. "There is only one thing we can do," my father replied, "and that is to go south." Accordingly, he turned the craft about, gave it full reef, and started by the compass north but, in fact, directly south. The wind was strong, and we seemed to have struck a current that was running with remarkable swiftness in the same direction."
This suggests that during the Northern winte on the outside, the atmosphere gets sucked into the interior. What does this description suggest about the size of the opening?
Dharma/Dean
Dick Fojut: Astro/Geo
Phenomenon
Dean... (Sending again) This time for all members. Hope
this gets through this time.
ASTRONOMICAL, GEOLOGICAL
PHENOMENA
Understand that I am not academically trained in the sciences,
just a very interested layman and will not use any technical terms
and formulas more expert forum writers like Dean, Scott and others
normally insert in their essays and comments - which most often go
right over my limited comprehension.
Cater, Lamprecht and long dead Col. James
Churchward (of MU books fame) believe the Earth (and other
planets) are hollow with relatively thin outer crusts. Churchward
suggested that condition also extended to our Sun and other stars,
currently still theorized by orthodox scientists to be super hot
balls of gas generating their "energies" by thermonuclear
reactions in their centers. If the current batch of academics are
mistaken about the nature of our Sun, perhaps they also err about the
nature of distant Stars, since they theorize that those stars are
SIMILAR to our Sun. Following is one forgotten fact that may place
doubt on current beliefs about our Sun...
THE SUN - NEUTRINO EXPERIMENT THAT FAILED...
In the early 1970s PBS televised a special TV series on
ASTRONOMY for several hours each day for the public and also for
credit. PBS hasn't produced anything like it since.
(Freelancing full time as an Art Director/Graphic Artist (and
Cartoonist) in Advertising here in Tucson, Arizona in my office in
home, I was able to watch the entire series.)
Universities across the country had cooperatively prepared
separate Astronomy segments, running consecutively from basic to more
complex.
I especially recall a segment one day about the Sun and
Neutrinos. To laymen, Scientists generally describe our Sun as a
super hot, giant rotating BALL OF GAS, generating its various
energies through thermonuclear reactions in its center. If this is
HOW the Sun functions, the program explained, vast amounts of
particles called NEUTRINOS would be created and dispersed outward
where they could be detected on special earthly instruments. To
measure the precise amount of Neutrinos reaching earth, instruments
were set up in a deep mine shaft in the western part of America.
Scientists from cooperating Universites gathered there each year to
take the measurements. Over several decades they continued to
measure.
RESULT? NOT ENOUGH NEUTRINOS!
The scientist narrator explained that the amount of Neutrinos
from the Sun was unexpectedly very small. Too few Neutrinos to
support the thermonuclear theory. Because of this disappointing
result, the physicist-narrator concluded the program with an
astounding statement that "we" (scientists) must now RE-THINK our
entire theory about how the Sun functions.
The next day's program (from another university) covered our
Solar System, instructing that our Sun creates energy through
thermonuclear reactions in the center, producing Neutrinos!
Never again was the failed Neutrino experiment or the "we must
now RETHINK" statement (as far as I can recall) ever repeated over
the 30+ succeeding years on TV or in print ...with one exception.
JASTROW and THOMPSON in their book "ASTRONOMY FUNDAMENTALS AND
FRONTIERS" (my copy dates back to the 1970s), mentioned the failed
neutrino experiment in one (or two) short paragraphs. They admitted
not understanding it. As I recall reading, they covered over the
failure by suggesting that for some unexplained reason the Sun was
just not producing many neutrinos at that time! Incredible.
JASTROW: HALF OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVED MOON, MARS CRATERS WERE
VOLCANICALLY CREATED, NOT FROM METEOR OR ASTEROID IMPACTS...
Interestingly, in that same Astronomy book, Jastrow (or
Thompson) related that at that time (1970s) half of Scientists
believed the craters on the Moon and Mars came about through volcanic
action... and the other half believed they were caused by meteor or
asteroid impacts. Opinion split right down the middle.
(The Electric Universe concept that may have caused some
craters, was apparently unknown to the writers.)
Jastrow and Thompson didn't detail the volcano vs impact
argument. But I must assume that SOME of those doubting the
meteor-asteroid impact theory (now mostly accepted) share my
layman's observation... Some Meteors obviously did crash into the
Moon and Mars - from all angles generally making ELLIPTICAL impacts,
then spraying outward But the majority of craters seem to be
ROUND (often with later ROUND craters and protuberances showing
inside the original craters).
HOW DID MOST OF THE METEORS AND ASTEROIDS MANAGE TO IMPACT AT
90 DEGREE ANGLES? APPARENTLY DROP TO THE SURFACE FROM DIRECTLY
OVERHEAD?
If all or most of the craters on the Moon and Mars were
caused by meteors and asteroids, our credulity and commonsense is
strained to believe that, somehow, most of the meteors and asteroids,
after arriving from all directions, temporarily PAUSED in space, then
"fell" vertically straight down to make round (not elliptical)
"impact" craters. (Perhaps God or some super being stopped the
meteors in flight and carefully dropped them vertically to make
pleasing nice round holes instead of of those unattractive elliptical
splotches?)
Something else curious that I noticed in Jastrow and
Thompson's book were various scientific DEFINITIONS...
For example, ENERGY was defined as made up of "LIGHT" or
"PHOTONS," etc. Then I would look up LIGHT (and PHOTONS) and find
they were defined as made up of "ENERGY." What that
communicated to my simple layman mind is that the authors really
didn't have a clear idea just exactly WHAT is Energy, Light and
Photons, so "defined" them with each others' label. The writers
also defined other matters similarly, defining them with each others
labels.
WHAT AM I LEADING TO WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS? SHOULD BE
OBVIOUS...
That some long accepted "scientific" assumptions about the
functions and very composition of our Sun (and similar Stars) may be
very mistaken. Apparently our Sun (and Stars) do NOT create energy
through thermonuclear reactions. (Sorry brilliant Isaac Asimov.) Is
our Sun only a super hot ball of GAS? Gases are elemental substances
broken down to their fundamental nature, non solid, vapor form. How
can scientists pretend to measure the "mass" of a GAS BALL (our
Sun)? Or estimate the Sun's "weight?"
BY MEASURING APPARENT VOLUME (SIZE) ARE THEY MEASURING ACTUAL
MASS AND DENSITY?
Also upsetting some mathematical formulas about mass, is the
possibility (probability) that our earth is HOLLOW and the only mass
consists of its crust, whatever the thickness and density of that
crust. Similarly, so too may our Sun (and other stars) have hollow
centers, or vacuums with their crusts being their only mass. Who will
devise a mathematical formula to calculate that? Perhaps Scott
can.
THE "WEIGHTS" OF OUR SUN, STARS - AND PLANETS - IS
CONJECTURE... GUESSWORK.
On Earth WEIGHT is measured by the amount of "pull" from
Earth's central magnet below the surface, attracting or
"pulling" to itself every element and object on the surface (and
in the atmosphere). It is the solid, magnetic SOURCE OF GRAVITY for
all elements on this planet. Just where and what is the solid
MAGNETIC source "pulling" or attracting the elements of the
Sun's vaporous, gaseous "mass" to itself so one can measure its
supposed "weight?" In space the largest Sun or star or planet
apparently has no weight that can be "measured." No matter how
neat mathematical formulas seem to determine the "weight" of the
Sun, it is still just conjecture. "Garbage in (to the formulas),
garbage out."
HOW DOES A GAS BALL SUN GENERATE CENTRIFUGAL "THROWING
AWAY" AND MAGNETIC "PULLING" FORCES?...
And how can a vaporous ball of GAS maintain a near perfect round
shape, rotate on an orderly axis, have poles that oscillate regularly
every 11 years and be in magnetic contact with its distant RULING Sun
about which it precisely orbits?
And how does a ball of GAS generate great CENTRIFUGAL forces
that throw or REPEL its solid satellites away from itself into outer
space - while at the same time generating equally great magnetic,
PULLING, attractive forces that overcome and neutralize the
centrifugal force - and hold those satellites close and in precise,
orderly orbits around itself? Magic?
HOLLOW PLANETS? HOLLOW SUNS? WITH SOLID CRUSTS?
SOURCE OF EARTH'S GRAVITY AT CENTER OF EARTH?...
Jan Lamprecht and Cater are convinced that Earth and other
planets are HOLLOW with solid crusts. Each deny that our Earth has a
4,000 (or 600) mile diameter "nickel-iron ball" in its center
popularly thought to be Earth's magnet. (Now one forum writer says
some scientists now theorize it is a TITANIUM ball!). Iron-Nickel or
Titanium, that theoretical ball of metal is supposed by too many to
be a giant magnet and the source of Earth's GRAVITY.
...NOT ACCORDING TO MY 1948 BRITANNICA!
In my 1948 Britannica the science writer described that
instruments had detected Earth's SOURCE of gravity (pull) is NOT in
Earth's center, but seems to originate some 50 MILES DOWN -
EVENLY AROUND OUR ENTIRE PLANET! I was astounded when I ran across
this. Group members must be familiar with the 50 mile depth referred
to by Cater (and also by Churchward).
SPACE AND THE SUN'S RAYS...
I'm trying to reconcile for myself (admittedly with scant
Cater and Lamprecht material), about any SIMILAR (or divergent)
viewpoints held by Cater and Lamprecht compared to Churchward. All 3
disagree with much of current scientific notions. Some of those
notions are over 70 years old.
SPACE IS FILLED WITH ETHER? ESSENCE?
From reading recent excerpts, Cater (and Jan?) describe space as
filled with an ETHER. Similarly, writing of what fills space,
Churchward used the term "ESSENCE." Churchward described the
ESSENCE that fills our Earth's atmosphere (within which, as he
expressed it, the "popular," analyzable atmospheric elemental
particles "float") as also being elemental, but so fine that it
cannot be analyzed.
But away from the Earth's atmospheric envelope, Churcward suggested
that the rest of space is also filled with an ESSENCE (Cater's
Ether?) but so much finer and thinner than Earth's atmospheric
essence that, for practical purposes, we can consider outer space as
empty of elements. "Nothingness" in terms of elements.
As I understand Cater, he says "SOFT PARTICLES" radiate
from the Sun to Earth. This may be a semantic difference. Churchward
says the Sun radiates "RAYS" to Earth. I interpret that
"Rays" are still elemental, the majority of them ultra dark and
invisible to vision, but not as fine as the elements in the ESSENCE
(Ether?) that surrounds Earth's body.
Could it be that our Sun and Stars (and Jupiter, presumed to be
a Gas giant) are NOT Gas balls at all, but bodies with solid,
relatively cool crusts (similar to Earth) surrounded by dense
specialized clouds our present instruments cannot penetrate and
understand?
WHY IS AN IRON-NICKEL BALL AT EARTH'S CENTER UNLIKELY? NO
IRON IN THE PRIMARY GRANITE ROCK.
Col. JAMES CHURCHWARD, in his two classic scientific volumes,
"COSMIC FORCES OF MU," books 1 and 2, wrote that most orthodox
geologists had mistaken theories about the creation of Earth's
original crust. He criticized them as not understanding HOW hot
masses cool to atmospheric temperatures. He said he did understand
and described it. What he didn't mention in his books were his
credentials. **Before world war one he owned and operated CHURCHWARD
INTERNATIONAL STEEL. He truly WAS an expert in cooling large masses
to atmospheric temperatures! **
THE PRIMARY ARCHAEAN ROCK IN EARTH'S CRUST WAS COMPOSED OF
SIX ELEMENTS ONLY. NO IRON OR NICKEL...
Churchward agreed that Earth was originally formed from a nebula
of hot gases. (In an earlier Email I wrote how the nebula's gases
were roughly worked into a circular form by a CENTRIPETAL force, a
vortex. When the gases reached the "center" they rebounded
outward impacting with incoming gases. At that point is where the
crust began to solidify.
Churchward described the geological composition of Earth's
primary granite crust that formed by fusion as the hot gases cooled,
joined and crystallized to form the first thin outside crust crystals
near the middle of the nebula. Adding to that first line of crystals
by fusion, the UNSTRATIFIED primary granite crust solidified to
molten matter and thickened (from BOTH sides simultaneously).
That primary granite layer was composed of SIX ELEMENTS ONLY,
Oxygen, Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium, Calcium and Potassium. From
those six gases only... "The primary foundation rocks, cooled from
fusion, formed a mechanical union of QUARTZ, FELSPAR and
MICA."
The 6 gases that joined to create the primary granite rock cooled at
a hotter temperature than the later gneiss rock layers, first laid
down on top of the still molten granite rock. The earth rolling,
spread the secondary molten Gneiss rocks in layers, STRATIFIED.
According to Churchward, most METALS like iron are ABSENT in the
primary crust rocks and iron and iron oxides do not appear until
higher up in the gneiss rock layers. The iron gases apparently
required cooler temperatures to later combine and solidify in the
outside Gneiss crust layers. So it is unlikely that a 4,000 mile
diameter iron-nickel mass could have solidified in the center of the
Earth. (Probably geologists should be required to work in a steel
mill early in their careers before they try to theorize how Earth was
formed!)
EXPLOSIVE BUBBLES FORMED HALF THE VOLUME OF EARTH'S
CRUST...
NON-SOLIDIFYING elemental gases from which explosives are
formed, NITROGEN, HYDROGEN, SULPHUR, CARBON, etc. did not go into
forming the primary foundation granite rock. But vast volumes of
those lighter gases, having been worked to the center by the initial
centripetal force, were "trapped," sealed inside the solidifying
outside crust along with the heavier rock forming gases. These
non-solidifying VOLCANIC gases formed huge bubbles, chambers of
explosive gases surrounded by the solidifying granite rock.
From various phenomena Churchward estimated that those chambers
probably occupied fully half of the crust's VOLUME. The rocks were
still relatively soft and flexible. CENTRIFUGAL FORCE from below and
the rolling of the earth in rotation, flattened the chamber heights.
Most chambers could be measured with a ruler, but some were miles in
depth from their "roofs" to "floors." And some were thousands
of miles in length. The chamber roofs were upheld by the pressure of
gases contained within. (At a later date, ancient civilizations like
Atlantis and MU were built upon the surfaces of continent sized
chambers).
From before the molten rock cooled and continuing less violently
today, Earth's centrifugal force has been gradually emptying the
remaining "free" volcanic gases in Earth's molten layer and
from the lower chambers in the granite, forcing them upward through
vertical cracks and fissures that opened everywhere in cooling. (So
called vertical "Faults" are EVERYWHERE in the crust.). In the
distant past those gases being moved upward entered and
over-compressed connected chambers near the surface until their roofs
were raised and pierced as volcanos, emptying the gases into the
atmosphere.
Minus pressure of the gases that had upheld the chamber roof, the
roof collapsed to the chamber floor - and volumes of water poured
in from all sides to fill the hole. The weight of water compressed
the rock below, and a new sedimentary rock was formed.
AND COAL SEAMS WERE ALSO FORMED...
OR a coal bed might also be formed when the gases of a nearby
shallow chamber were INDIRECTLY emptied through fissures leading to
the first blown out chamber. The lush super tropical jungle growth
growing on the surface of the shallow chamber would fall to the
chamber floor, mostly intact, with the surface (the "underclay")
Additional growth was torn up and carried in by the whirlpool of
surrounding waters pouring into the hole. Soil and mud (the "upper
clay") also carried in solution by the waters would then settle,
cover and seal over the foliage.
The great heat from super hot gases still rising from below
the fallen chamber floor, would enter the vegetation and "cook"
the sealed over mass in smothered combustion. Moisture and elemental
gases were forced out into the surrounding rock. Continuing pressure
from above and pressure with heat from below produced a COAL
SEAM.
Later the roof of a chamber (or chambers) directly below the
crashed chamber would be pushed up above the surface of the waters
along with the earlier sedimentary layer or the coal seam as part of
its roof. For a period of time the new emerged surface would persist,
new foliage would grow and cover it. But without fail the chamber
would eventually also become over-compressed and it too would
blowout, collapse and be covered with water.
(Churchward contended that the elements in the nebula that
would form Earth's waters and atmosphere, cooled and combined last,
while the Earth's surface was still molten and super hot. For a
period of time boiling water covered the entire surface of the Earth.
It took the Earth's centrifugal force moving the hot volcanic gases
upward to raise the first rocks above the surface of the
waters.)
Over millions of years, according to Churchward, the continued
uplifting of the (thickening) rock layers, eventual blowouts and
downward collapses of upper chambers reduced the overall diameter of
early Earth by some 20 miles or more deep. The rock layers were
thickened, compacted (more of them becoming free of chambers) and
hardened. Over those millions of years, the foundation granite and
the higher Gneiss rocks were over and over again, raised, submerged,
punctured through, melted and mixed, cracked - and pulverized into
soil that would nurture future vegetable and animal life.
VOLCANIC GASES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEPTHS OF OUR OCEANS
AND SEAS...
Churchward asserted that this upward movement of volcanic gases
over-compressing and blowing out chambers (and a line of connected
chambers laying one below another), were alone responsible for the
depths of our seas and oceans...
...AND THE HEIGHTS OF OUR MOUNTAINS RANGES RAISED BY FORGING
GAS "BELTS" BENEATH...
At a later time, if Churchward was correct, dating only between
15,000 and 10,000 years back, most of our mountains and mountain
ranges were uplifted. About that time, when the rising hot gases
could no longer easily pierce straight upward to the atmosphere
because the compacted rock layers above had become thick, dense and
resistant, lateral "belts" were formed through lower chambers (10
to 15 miles deep) connected by lateral cracks and fissures.
Moving gases over-compressed and raised the belt "roofs."
The compacted, resistant rock slabs above (miles thick) were cracked
and raised up but could not be easily pierced. These hard, compacted
uplifted rock slabs fell together in triangles, fixed in position,
above the belt tunnels. These are our mountains and mountain ranges
today, formed above the gas belts. Mountain uplifting would continue
along the belt until a weak spot was found above to allow a volcano
to open and release the gases upward into the atmosphere through a
new volcanic cone. Then further mountain uplifting would cease above
that belt. The volcano became (like all volcanos) the "escape
hatch" for future volumes of gases moving through the
belt.
EARTHQUAKES ARE CAUSED BY BELT BLOCKS...
The phenomena of EARTHQUAKES, according to Churchward,
comes about when the roof or walls of a belt, after the gases have
emptied and the pressure is temporarily gone, collapse inward
BLOCKING the belt. New super hot gases being moved through the belt
have to FORCE OR MELT THROUGH OR FORGE AROUND the block. The
vibrating effort and shock is felt on the surface as an EARTHQUAKE.
Clearing additional smaller blocks produces AFTERSHOCKS.
Other factors like SOFT PARTICLES, outside cosmic electrical
forces, etc., may well accelerate and influence the movement of the
subterranean gases. But in final real effect, it is the gases alone,
clearing belt blocks that produce the surface shaking phenomena of
EARTHQUAKES, if Churchward is correct.
CHURCHWARD'S NCV STEEL, ALMOST IMPENETRABLE, HELPED WIN
WORLD WAR ONE...
Something else little known about Col. James Churchward... Last
year his step grand-daughter gave me more info about him. Churchward
was also an inventor. His most notable invention was NCV STEEL
(nickel, chrome, vanadium), nearly impenetrable, which he sold to our
War Dept. In her opinion his NCV steel may have won World War One for
the Allies. The Germans had the upper hand until tanks and armaments
using Churchward's NCV steel entered the war. The Germans had
nothing to match.
In 1918 when both Carnegie and Bethlehem Steel infringed
Churchward International Steel, diverting the foreign patents
for their own manufacture, Churchward sued and they had to pay him
$275,000 in fines. (equal to 30 million today). Churchward used the
money to publish his first set of MU books in the 1920s.
DO CATER AND JAN AGREE OR DIFFER WITH CHURCHWARD?...
Whether Jan and Cater ALSO think our Earth, Other planets, our
Sun (and Stars) have solid crusts - with a molten layer - as well
as being hollow, I am not at this moment clear. But Churchward did
contend that our Sun and Stars are probably similarly constructed to
his Earth model with solid, relatively cool hard crusts and a molten
"soft" layer forming a FRICTION line. With the molten layer
rotating slightly slower then the hard crust, the friction line
functions as a gigantic DYNAMO, absolutely necessary to generate all
electromagnetic Forces and cold magnetic gravitational Forces. (In my
humble opinion, Churchward was one of the truly great, still largely
unrecognized scientific minds of this (past) century. But
unfortunately, apparently both Jan and Cater seem largely unaware of
him)
ELEMENTS AND "FORCES"..
Apparently Cater and Churchward then differ somewhat. Churchward
contended that the entire visible physical universe is composed of
ELEMENTS (which includes the atoms and all particles smaller than
atoms) - and "FORCES."
CHURCHWARD'S "FORCES"...
Forces are electromagnetic in nature but are not elemental, are
not particles. Their movements are vibratory. The atoms and particles
smaller than atoms cannot move, "vibrate" themselves or go into
action without these subtle and motivated FORCES. Without the impetus
of Forces, elements are still, static, "dead," Forces
(again, electromagnetic in nature), can be "felt" but not seen.
And if they could be seen, what they might "look" like; sparks,
bolts or glowing points, etc., would just be conjecture.
(But momentarily aside, I find it interesting to note that the
OAHSPE BIBLE, said to have been typed on the first, original
typewriter in the 1800s, also claims Earth's atmospheric
"Light" is an Earthly creation and phenomena. The writer of
OAHSPE described the "appearance" of LIGHT as shaped like tiny
"bolts" or "needles." When the Sun's rays were present, the
bolts in our atmosphere lined up end to end directly with the Sun's
rays and we have the phenomena of daylight. When the Sun's rays
were absent the bolts went askew in all directions and we experience
the absence of light in our atmosphere.)
Earth's many generated Forces have specifically assigned tasks
and "purposes." For example Earthly HEAT is a specific Force. If
you could accumulate a sufficient volume of it at one location, you
might be able to melt the Earth itself. (But you can't.) Earthly
LIGHT is another separate, specific Force (containing NO heat force),
according to Churchward. And all these specialized Earthly Forces are
generated (and re-generated) at Earth's "central" dual-magnet,
the electromagnetic generating function of the FRICTION LINE dynamo
located below 50 miles down, where the hard compacted crust grinds
against the slightly slower rotating molten layer.
CHURCHWARD: THE SUN HAS NO DIRECT MAGNETIC CONTROL OVER ANY
EARTHLY ELEMENTS, ONLY UPON EARTH'S ELECTROMAGNETIC
FORCES...
In a possible departure from Cater (and everybody else) Churchward
asserted that our Sun's Forces carried by its rays to Earth, have
NO magnetic affect on Earth's material ELEMENTS, only on affinitive
Forces contained in Earth's crust and atmosphere.
The Sun's Forces are also electromagnetic in nature, but
specialized. According to Churchward, certain of the Sun's forces
carried by its dark, invisible rays, are magnetically AFFINITIVE to
Earth's Forces (stored in inactive volume within Earth's
storehouse "battery," the hard crust). These Sun Forces
affinitively draw Earth's Forces out of the crust into the
atmosphere, where OTHER Forces carried in the Sun's rays,
specifically affinitive to Earth's Light and Heat Forces, for
example, agitate them into movement and "life" in the
atmosphere.
According to Churchward, "Nature's" laws have set up a
delicate balance. The Sun's affinitive electromagnetic Forces can
draw out only so much volume of Earth's Forces from its crust into
the atmosphere (and none beyond the furthest edge of Earth's
atmosphere.) There is a limit to the "holding capacity" of Forces
by atmospheric particles (principally oxygen and moisture). Any
extreme excess of Forces over concentrated at one area will attempt
to disperse and equalize to areas with lower amounts of force - or,
if unable, will return to the friction line and crust in the form of
lightning bolts. (Lightning does not come from outer space as the
"Electric Universe" website authors imagine.)
THE SUN ROTATES EARTH ON AN AXIS BY ATTRACTING OUT FORCES
STORED IN EARTH'S CRUST...
Affinitive magnetic Forces carried by the Sun's rays attract
volumes of similarly affinitive Forces inside the "morning"
quarter of Earth's crust (where freshly generated Forces have been
generated and stored during the night), drawing them out into the
atmosphere. The Earth's central dual-magnet (at the friction line)
RESISTS with all its might and tries (unsuccessfully) to hold on to
its "pulled" upon Forces stored in the crust.
The morning quarter of Earth's crust, is forced to gradually
release its Forces. But still holding on to the Forces, is
"pulled" along with them, following, and is rotated. (by
Slippage) By noon most of the Forces in the crust have been
attracted out into the atmosphere and agitated into action. There is
nothing left for the Sun to attract. No more Forces to pull out of
the crust.
By then a new morning quarter has rotated into view and the
Sun's rays attract out new Forces from the morning crust. The noon
quarter, with its Forces already out of the crust, ceases resistance,
continues rotating and becomes the twilight quarter and rotates
freely away from sight of the Sun. Then, most "exhausted" Forces
held in the atmosphere begin to return to the friction line for
"re-generation" and do so during the "night," also recharging
and re-filling the crustal storehouse.
Earth's DENSITY nullifies MOST of the Sun's magnetic pull
upon the Earthly Forces in the nightside hemisphere and the nightside
atmosphere away from the sun. This unceasing "pulling" out of the
newly charged Forces stored in each recharged "morning" quarter,
continues Earth's rotation on an axis. It will continue forever
unless our Sun ceases to exist. Just How Cater's "SOFT
PARTICLES" theory meshes or does not mesh with this, I do not
know.
THE GYROSCOPICAL FORCE, "MAGNETIC CATACLYSMS," THE NORTH POLAR
AURORA, CHURCHWARD AND CATER...
Churchward wrote that the Sun's GREATEST affinitive attraction
is to the great volumes of generated Forces packed into and
supermagnetizing the north polar area. Churchward said that the
molten under-layer of the hard outside crust, rotating more slowly,
produces a secondary force, a GYROSCOPICAL force.
It is this secondary GYROSCOPICAL force that keeps Earth upright
at mean position against the pull of the Sun's Forces on the super
magnetized north polar area. The Sun, as well as rotating Earth's
crust on an axis, is constantly attempting to pull Earth's North
polar Forces toward the Sun. Earth's central magnet and
gyroscopical force successfully resist. But the initial effort of the
Sun succeeds in tipping the polar area slightly for 6 months of the
year, giving Earth its seasons.
In the past, periodically many times (the last event being about
17,000 years ago, mistakenly theorized as the Ice Age) the young
Earth could not resist the Sun's pulling of the north pole beyond
mean toward itself. For an undetermined time the pole gradually
leaned beyond mean toward the Sun... until Earth's magnet and
gyroscopical force regained control and like a rubber band, in a
"lurch," swung the north pole away from the Sun. The body of the
earth moved one way but the loose waters on the surface continued in
the original direction and spilled north over the pole and many land
areas, drowning all life.
When the last (and ":final," Churchward thought) "magnetic
cataclysm" occurred about 17,000 years back, the regularly cooling
Earth had developed vast ice fields at the poles. The "lurch"
caused the Pacific Ociean to roll northward over the still
mountainless plains of Asia, northern Asia and the Gobi (destroying
the Uigher Empire), picked up the North polar ice along with chunks
of rock, and roared down over Canada, the mountains of ice and rocks
mixed with the giant waves ground off the top soil of Canada down to
the bedrock. The waves of water, ice and rock continued onto the
MOUNTAINLESS plains of the United States and parts of Europe, planing
and scratching the stationery rocks and grinding to a pulp all trace
of vegetable and animal life - including man - in the path. A
catastrophic event of. days, not a mythical "ice age" lasting
thousands of years.
Churchward made some estimates. The simultaneous imposing twin
giant masses of ice supposed to have covered the Northern and
Southern areas would have contained most of the water that existed on
the entire Earth. And because ice slides DOWNHILL, for the North
glacier to slide as far down in the United States as believed, it
would have had to be many tens of thousands of feet thick and planted
atop a mythical mountain chain another 30,000 feet high. (The
mythical "Labrador Mountains" which gave birth to the Northern
glacier, then vanished without a trace into the Earth... and also
vanished from Ice Age textbooks when authors realized how absurd was
the idea of their theoretical existence. Yet such a chain of
mountains was absolutely necessary for such a glacier to exist.)
But in my treasured 1948 Britannica, about the ice age, the
science writer comments that at one time (pre-1948) some Scientists
suggested that the evidence of the stationery rocks of Canada and the
United States being planed and scratched by ice, might have been
caused by a great wave of water with ice, coming from the North over
the pole. The writer commented that because 'no one" could
conceive how that could happen, the GLACIAL ICE CAP THEORY became
accepted!
None of them had read Churchward's explanation then or
since.
Cater asserts the "inner soft particle Sun" radiates out of
the Polar opening producing the visible Aurora display. Churchward
thought the gyroscopical force tended to pack the Forces generated at
the friction layer, upward into the polar area, supermagnetizing it
and producing the electrical Auroral displays. Both Churchward and
Cater may be correct. Both actions may be taking place.
Churchward conceived that when early Earth's crust was still
soft and pliable, the Gyroscopical force, as well as pack the
generated Forces upward into the pole, also tended to "cup" the
polar regions, flatten them out. But Churchward didn't conceive
that "cupping" may have been due to openings at the poles,
leading to a hollow inside.
THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE?
In Churchward's view, there is One Great Force from which all other
primary and secondary Forces in the universe emanate. We can call
that First Force, God, the Creator, whatever. That great intelligent
Force has assigned the duties of all other sub-Forces in in the
universe. The big boss.
In Churchward's view, while elements require Forces to put
them into motion, Forces cannot function without elements. They
accompany and compliment each other. Like male and female. Forces
cannot "travel" across "empty" space, filled only with a thin
ESSENCE (Ether?) from Stars, or from our Sun to the Earth, without
being "carried" along by vibrating elemental "RAYS." (Soft
"particles"?)
The Sun is not like a hot oven. As the Sun's magnetic rays
pass outward through space beyond its specialized atmosphere and
cloud layers, there is no radiating heat, no lighting of the essence
(ether) on the way to Earth's atmosphere. The rays are magnetic,
dark and invisible... until they mesh with volumes of Earth's
Forces in Earth's atmosphere and agitate them into movement and
life.
THE ORBITS OF THE PLANETS AROUND OUR SUN...
One apparent departure between Cater, Lamprecht and Churchward
may be just WHAT magnetically controls the orbits of the planets. HOW
it all functions. In Churchward's explanation, it is caused by
several major cosmic forces working against each other. Churchward
says the Sun generates a great CENTRIFUGAL force - and REPELLANT
Forces that "electrically" or magnetically grip (each Planet's
Forces) and repel the satellites outward. At the same time the
Sun's magnetic affinitive Forces mesh with each satellite's
Forces and "pull" the satellites back inward. Depending upon the
strength of the affinitive Forces in the satellites and differences
of each (greatly determined by the density of their crusts and power
of their friction line dynamos) each satellite is kept in a different
orbit. None can crash into the other.
EACH SUN AND STAR APPARENTLY HAS "SPECIALIZED" FORCES
THAT ARE AFFINITIVE ONLY WITH THE FORCES OF ITS OWN SATELLITES. THE
SATELLITES CAN ONLY BE CONTROLLED BY THEIR OWN SUN...
Further, Churchward contended there was vast order in the
universe, no chaos. No star can capture another star's satellites.
No rotating ("live") body in space can crash into another (he may
be wrong there). Obviously our Sun generates specialized Forces
affinitive to Earth's Forces.
BUT the Sun also generates ANOTHER set of specialized forces
that are only affinitive with similar magnetic Forces generated by
its distant RULING Sun. That ruling Sun both rotates our Sun on an
axis, oscillates its poles, and holds our Sun in an orbit around
itself. Further, the specialized magnetic Forces of our Sun's
ruling Sun must be ULTRA and NEUTRAL to Earth and Earth's Forces.
If not, we would long ago have been wrested away from our Sun and be
rotating directly around that distant, unseen Star.
A 2nd CRUST INSIDE EARTH?
It may be possible that the never-more-to-cool-further molten
layer under Earth's outer crust, extends to 600, 700 or more miles
deeper. And though Churchward apparently never imagined it, if the
Earth's crustal "source" of gravity IS at the "friction
line" dual-magnet, a SECOND crust may also have eventually cooled
and formed from the molten matter on the INSIDE of the hollow
shell.
If there are polar openings to the outside atmosphere, the
gasses in the Earth's nebula that cooled to molten and added to the
crust on the outside, might have been doing likewise INSIDE the
solidifying shell. Standing on the inner crust, the source of cold
elemental gravity (as well as Earth's molten heat) would still be
"BELOW" one's feet at the same friction line dual-magnet that
is attracting all elements on Earth's outer surface. Obviously,
some of the Sun's rays (soft particles?) and Forces must penetrate
deep into Earth's crust to be able to draw Earth's Forces upward
and outward into the outside atmosphere as asserted by
Churchward.
And if I understand Cater correctly, some of those rays (soft
particles?} with their Forces, continue to penetrate through the
crust and eventually aggregate to form some kind of a duller
appearing inner specialized "Sun" in the hollow.
ROTATING IN ORBITS - AND A DEFINITION OF PHYSICAL
"LIFE"...
Forces cause the atoms and particles smaller than atoms to go
into action and movement, INTO ORBITS. (The ancient description of
physical "life", from MU, being approximately defined as rotating
in circular and elliptical orbits)
According to Churchward, certain individual magnetic Forces are
apparently tasked to orbit around the smallest of elements within
atoms, setting them into motion and into orbits around other
elements, like cog wheels in a watch, until every particle and the
atoms themselves are in motion. How this fits in with the "Electric
Unierse" theory I am uncertain. Appreciate input from others.
If anyone is interested in getting Churchward's two purely
scientific books, "COSMIC FORCES OF MU," books one and two (and
you can't locate them at a used book store or - unlikely - a Library)
check out the following websites...
BotherHood of Life website...
http://www.brotherhoodoflife.com/MU.html
$17.95 for each copy of Book One and Book Two.
Aquila Cove Weat distribution
http://www.aquila.org/dbfiles/446.HTML
(Apparently $14.95 per copy)
P.S. Also, if you're interested, you might
like to read a piece about Churchward I wrote, that Jeff Rense put on
his website earlier... "THE SCIENTIFIC ABSURDITY OF THE MYTHICAL
ICE AGE." (The magnetic cataclysm)
http://www.sightings.com/general3/myth.htmhttp://www.sightings.com/general3/myth.htm
The URL above is still active.