On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:04:25 -0700 Dick Fojut <[email protected]>
writes:
-----------------------------------
"THE SUN'S TEMPERATURE. Scientific works that are orthodox tell us
that the sun is "an exceedingly hot, super-heated body"
Herschel (the great scientist) did not agree with the orthodox. He
wrote: "The sun may be a cool body." From the various works written about
the sun which I have studied, the impression is left that scientists have
based their opinions that the sun's body has a very high temperature from
readings of the spectrum and on the erroneous belief that:
"The sun disperses her heat throughout the solar system."
and
"The earth's heat comes directly from the sun."
They have made no study to determine what heat is, nor its manner of
working. Their writings must therefore be what they are, mere guesses,
and very erroneous at that. I have heretofore devoted a section to heat,
showing what it is, whence it emanates and how it works. We meet
phenomena at every step showing most conclusively that our heat does not
come from the sun but is an earthly force.
Another phenomenon which confirms the fact that we do not derive our
heat directly from the sun, and that the sun does not distribute its heat
throughout the solar system, as is being taught today in our educational
establishments, is shown during the earth's elliptical orbit.
I will take the northern hemisphere as an example. Twice during the
year the sun is millions of miles nearer the earth than at other times.
During the fall and spring the sun is millions of miles nearer the earth
than in the summer. If the sun is the source of heat, when the earth is
millions of miles nearer the source we ought to experience a higher
temperature during the spring and fall, but do we? We do not! We
experience a middle temperature, clearly proving that our heat does not
come directly from the sun, thus bearing out the writings that have been
handed down to us from the first great civilization.
The deduction that the sun is an exceedingly hot super heated body
has been determined by the spectroscope. This in itself is the greatest
absurdity because the spectroscope does not register temperatures. It
cannot, because it does not register the rays which carry the heat force.
This I personally have proved in a court of law as an expert witness. Our
scientists in their writings about the sun have totally ignored the
natural workings of the forces. Nature's tools and means have been cast
to the winds."
-------------------------
In other sections Churchward discusses the mistake astronomers make
assuming the temperatures of distant bodies by the COLOR and luminosity
they see through their telescopes. I won't go into it here except to note
that the SAME COLOR Ray from molten steel over 2500 degrees is duplicated
with the SAME Ray coming from a FIREFLY at less than atmospheric
temperature.. Because of similar contradictions he pointed out,
Churchward suggested that many of the calculations orthodox astronomers
have made about the temperatures of distant bodies (and red shift
distances) may need revision.
How's that for slipping around an answer about Jupiter?
- Dick
---------------------------
Dick,
I too have read the writings of MU and I take exception to some
of the stuff you stated in regards to the temperature of the Sun, Earth
and where that heat comes from. You state above that the Sun is closest
to us in spring and fall or two times a year and that the distance is
millions of miles difference. You are only partly correct. It is true
that the Sun is closest to us but the time of the year that this happens
is during the winter solstice. It is farthest away during the summer
solstice. The Earth orbits the moon in the shape of an ellipse and there
is only one nearest and one farthest approach to the primary (The Sun)
during any single orbit.
It does seem superficially correct what you state about the
temperatures being highest during the times that the Earth is furthest
away but that you are missing a key factor. The earth is on an axial
tilt of 22.5 degrees. This means that irregardless of the distance to
the Sun, the hemisphere, North or South, that is more perpendicular to
the rays from the Sun is the one that ends up being warmer. A test for
your scenario would be difficult if not impossible to test, being that
the closer one is to the Sun the warmer it will be, all other factors
being the same. As you know the southern hemisphere alternates with the
northern in which one enjoys the warm summer months. One might compare
summer south to summer north a half year apart to see if some difference
could be detected at similar displacement north and south from the
equator. This is also problematic since as you also know the northern
hemisphere is by far holding the greater amount of land area. Like the
way England is warmed by the northern gulf stream to temperatures
contrary to what their latitude should suggest, the southern and northern
land areas most likely do not mirror each other making a case study of
latitude temperature highly problematic.
As to the Mu theory of things, regarding temperature, there might
be something to it, but your
analogies leave something to be desired. They are too easy to poke holes
into as I have just done. I found it interesting in the Churchward books
that he compares temperatures on mountain tops with
very low temperatures and using this analogy of distance to the Sun
suggests that distance makes no
difference. My aim here is not to claim him wrong since there are some
very interesting points he brings
out that might be right. His analogies are NOT finely tuned scientific
examples where all factors have
been accounted for. The thinner atmosphere far more than the space of a
distance of the mountains
height above typical land elevations is much more able to describe why it
is cold on mountain tops in
direct sunlight. His idea as I recall not having gone over the Mu books
in some time was the idea that
the Sun has a force and that there are force(s) that are earth forces.
Some phenomena occur only after
a combination of force or forces from both combine to produce an effect.
That is his theory and I even
can buy into these ideas somewhat in light of the curiosities we find in
nature. Why for instance do the
pictures form space only show the Earth and a black void everywhere else.
Is the light force only apparent after combining with an Earth force
such as atmosphere? The moon is claimed to be airless
and if atmosphere were required to have a light force evident, then that
might explain why we see no
stars. The problem with these ideas though is that for the Hubble space
telescope to work one would need to have the light from distant stars
encounter an air or atmospheric force to combine with and it
stands to reason that there is no air in orbit by the Hubble. One
reason why it might be that we see
no stars in the pictures from the space shuttle is that the film is no
sensitive enough, though I cannot
imagine why they wouldn't use sensitive film, or that the contrast of
light from the Earth overshadows
by contrast the light form the stars. I don't particularly buy this idea
since one can be on the earth in
late afternoon and see the Moon and the first few glimmerings of stars
before nightfall has fallen. I
can't imagine how one could not see stars more clearly on the moon than
on Earth. The atmosphere,
if it is really there at all as some might suggest, would be thinner and
pictures that are supposed to be
our astronauts on the surface of the Moon show at times even a dim
landscape. The Moon rotates
at just the right speed to keep its face toward the Earth at all times.
This doesn't mean that all Lunar
landings took place during a point of Lunar orbit that kept the landing
site in full sunlight all the time.
If the Sun was not always "overhead" then there is that much less reason
to state that the stars were
not visible because of being drowned out by the Sun.
Scott
Related thread: Suppressed Archaeology — Continues the "Jupiter's particles' route" exchange of 12 Jun 2001