particles.
Dick replies: The several separating (or filtering) of Heat and Light rays (carrying Forces) experiments by Churchward were done, not in a vacuum, but in the atmosphere, where friction between all elements is constant. If hard particles were trapped within soft particles, why would they NOT be released at that time? Why ONLY once the soft particles have passed into the crust, as you seem to imply in the above?
Dean, keep in mind I am NOT suggesting the Sun's rays that have passed into the crust at some depth, do not result in Heat, Luminosity and other believed phenomena. I was and am suggesting in my speculations, that SEVERAL, SEPARATE sets of Sun's rays, with DIFFERENT natures, may be SIMULTANEOUSLY penetrating into the crust together. I'm Speculating (because of Churchward's atmospheric experiments) that Cater may be quite innocently "lumping together" all rays (admittedly invisible to HIS and our perception) under his catch-all label of "soft particles."
About soft particles or Photons from the Sun (you've interspersed the two in several of your recent emails), isn't it also Cater's belief that WITHIN our atmosphere they cause both Light and Heat? If so, isn't sufficient FRICTION involving atmospheric elements happening, to then "release," "separate" or "disintegrate" soft and hard particles WITHIN the atmosphere which then produces Heat and Light?
Surely Cater (like Churchward) has carried out personal, practical laboratory experiments, to prove his beliefs about hard particles (within) soft particles producing heat and light in our atmosphere. Are such examples in his book? I'm not trying to deny validity for Cater's notions (and yours) on the above points, but contradictions remain that your comment has not seemed to clear up. - Dick
Dick replies: We've all read of honest people who've say they have witnessed the above. It may or may not have happened in this "solid" dimension. Their experiences may have been astral or other dimensional, or may have been actual. As yet, we seem to have no "scientific" proofs either way. So why bother throwing in the above and the following to justify or fault scientific premises? Seems irrelevant to the discussion. - Dick
Dick replies: As with my reply just above, the Cater explanation is a HYPOTHETICAL and imaginary supposition. Unless he can produce several proofs of tangible, multiple witnessed dematerialization having occurred, his explanation is purely speculation, or may be entirely wrong.
Personally I believe dematerialization - and materialization - and a lot of other phenomena, happen, but I would never state such as facts in a book and claim to explain HOW they happen. If Cater interjects a lot of similar speculations as authoritative "facts" in his book, I can partly understand why a lot of establishment scientists may have gotten turned off, and ignored his other more valid, science-based ideas! If Churchward had put across such speculations as "facts," I might have gotten turned off about him! - Dick
Dick replies: I answered that in my preceding replies above. Dean, your explanation is is also just your speculation. It seems to me your "why" is too emphatic. You only THINK they MAY not have not been perceived. Same with your comment on stopping the passage of Heat rays following... - Dick
Dick replies: How can you AUTHORITATIVELY assert the above as FACT? Aren't you just speculating about "latent heat" and "turned off" hard particles?
Another possible piece of "evidence" that Churchward points to about the various rays from the Sun having DIFFERENT natures is the following...
Recall first, Churchward claimed that the Sun's rays carry its generated Light and Heat "forces," are AFFINITIVE to Earth's own Light and Heat "forces" permeating the atmosphere - and stored in even greater volumes inside the earth's hard crust. The Sun's similar "affinitive" forces STIMULATE or AGITATE (use your own words) earth's similar forces into ACTION. Without the Sun's forces, earth's forces are relatively inactive - and completely in an inactive state when stored in the crust (earth's storage house, her "battery.")
Like Cater, he says the Sun's rays penetrate into the crust, but the Sun's carried HEAT rays with Heat forces, passing into the crust, obviously do not agitate the Earth's heat forces in the crust, into action. If the Sun's Heat forces could agitate Earth's Heat forces IN the crust into activity, the crust would superheat, melt and life on earth would end.
Because this Heating does not occur in the crust, Churchward contended that Earth's (cold) stored volumes of Heat forces had to be first DRAWN OUT OF THE CRUST into the atmosphere where they could be stimulated into action.
He concluded that separate ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES carried in the Sun's rays (not the Sun's Heat rays and forces) penetrate the crust, draw forth ALL electromagnetic forces stored in the crust (including earth's electromagnetic heat and light forces - and all other forces) and place them into the atmosphere. You can call the following his reasoned speculation if you wish, but Churchward believed earth's atmospheric particles have a "holding capacity" for all forces drawn forth. Each atmospheric element and each atmospheric can "hold" or be "associated" with only so much volume of forces.
When earth's atmospheric particles have become "saturated" with forces the Sun's magnetic rays have drawn out of the crust, they can "hold" no more and the Sun's magnetic rays, though present and reaching into the crust, become ineffectual. They can draw forth no more from the volumes of all forces still retained in Earth's crustal "battery." Also, if you believe Churchward, all magnetic rays and forces from the Sun have NO affect on earth's elements, no magnetic pull on earth's elemental surface. The Sun's electromagnetic forces affect ONLY affinitive forces in the crust and in the atmosphere. (He gives many proofs to substantiate that). From around noon, the Sun's magnetic forces can draw forth no more forces from crust, especially no more HEAT forces. The atmosphere is filled to capacity. Anymore added will "spill."
BUT obviously OVER-saturation in the atmosphere does occur or we'd have no clouds, no storms, maybe no rain. When more (of all forces) fills an area with more forces than the elemental particles can "hold," the excess volumes of forces "spill" away, moving to less saturated area, to EQUALIZE the atmosphere. If the excess volume of forces in the atmosphere is large, we may observe this equalizing as horizontal sheet lightning. If a large excess cannot find atmospheric areas to equalize to, the excess will return to the crustal storehouse as vertical bolts of lightning. How much Cater's notions are ALSO valid about lightning, I do not know. Possibly both men are correct in degree.
But getting back to the earth's forces (also carried by earth "rays" of course) after they are drawn forth and "saturate" earth's atmospheric elements, Churchward believed that only THEN, in the atmosphere, did the affinitive Heat and Light forces from the Sun, agitate Earth's affinitive Heat and Light forces into activity, producing light and warmth. Where the Sun's Heat rays were in more direct line (from Sun to earth) with the extracted "lines" of earth's Heat forces, temperatures are warmest.
But once the rotating afternoon, then early evening surface passed around from WEST to EAST out of "sight" of the Sun, out of contact with the Sun's Light rays and forces, Earth's Light forces held in the atmosphere began becoming inactive, began being REDRAWN back to their crustal storehouse by earth's "central" magnet, deep in the crust. During the night only small quantities of various forces remained active in the atmosphere. So too with most other forces originally magnetically attracted from the crust beginning with the dawn quadrant that came in line with the Sun's rays and forces.
As I speculated earlier, I do not think this negates Cater's theory that the Sun's rays penetrate the crust and deep down and on to the hollow, ALSO create Heat, Luminosity and other effects. But for at least a considerable depth of our crust form the surface, the Sun's rays carrying HEAT forces (separate forces OR as Cater's "disintegrating" soft particles releasing hard particles) apparently do NOT become active. If they did become active in the upper miles of the crust, the crust would melt. For whatever reason (unsuspected to Churchward), Heat rays do not become active again until much deeper in the crust. - Dick
---------------------------
Dick replies: Nether Cater nor Churchward can be PROVED conclusively. Cater theorizes and speculates. Churchward theorized and speculated. Which man is MORE correct? Which is wrong? It's up to each of us to decide for ourselves which. It may well be both guys are partly wrong and partly right. Maybe both are describing similar phenomena with different terms. I'm not certain. BUT I am convinced that both thinkers are closer to REALITY with their observations than the mass of scientists in today's orthodox "science."
About the SOURCE OF EARTH'S INTERNAL HEAT.... If Churchward is correct, the hard crust rests upon a layer of MOLTEN matter, rotating slower than the crust. (which also supposedly creates Earth's Gyroscopical force). The molten matter can cool no further because the crust above is already SATURATED with all the volumes of heat forces that can be withdrawn from the molten matter. A neutral zone of cooling was long ago arrived at, making the molten layer permanent.
But the subterranean, explosive volcanic gases originally trapped in pockets throughout the granite crust, carry some of that heat with them as they are forced up through cracks and fissures by earth's great centrifugal force from rotation.The heat forces "saturating" these deep gases being emptied upward under pressure, plus their explosive compound natures, produces much of the heat from them in volcanic eruptions. Possibly some of this deep heat in the gases comes from Cater's notion of heat being released deep in the crust. That seems quite possible to me.
But about "plates," Dean. I'm sorry, I cannot buy this tectonic "plates" idea. I find it a fantasy, including VERTICAL "plate" movement which may be a misunderstanding, better pictured as Churchward's gas chamber roofs were pushed up by gases, blown open, emptied and submerged again. Churchward's explanation covers every phenomena, tectonic plate movement does not. I remind you Pratt gave the analogy about so-called plates, that earth's crust is about as flexible as a brick in a wall. -Dick
Dick replies: Churchward's 5 books will cost you more (unless you find them in a used book store). I hope you too will read them. - Dick