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...
$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/g eneral3/myth.htm
The URL above is still active.