Questioning the current accepted Earth Model

Frode · April 16, 2001, 12:06am

Dean,

Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?

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

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

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

Dick_Fojut · April 16, 2001, 2:36am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dick Fojut in Tucson

Paul_Sproviero1 · April 16, 2001, 3:06am

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

machoarm · April 16, 2001, 3:09am

Just wanted to share a few websites,and hopefully get some feedback! I am
going to attach a 3~d hollogram of the Polar opening....

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.com/rebyrd.htm

http://ast.leeds.ac.uk/haverah/spaseman/bookalone.shtml

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/newse/may/nazi.html

http://www.ufo.it/german/

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/flying-saucers/expedition.htm

l
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message (1 executable file, removed as unsafe)

Frode · April 16, 2001, 7:07am

I skimmed through the rest of the mail. I posted this because I fund it refreshing to read that someone questions the current geological model of earth. I personally agree to some of your complains such as the earth being 4.5 billion years. But she is investigating flaws in our current understanding of gravity and not geology. The above was just a side note. Calling something scientific gibberish and junk science just because it does not agree with your faith (you asked for it by labeling yourself as non-scientist) is just plain silly.

Dick_Fojut · April 16, 2001, 9:59am

Paul,
You're too kind. Thanks for support. I hope other readers get interested. I never gave really serious consideration to an inhabited Hollow Earth until hearing Lamprecht on Punnet's Sunday night Coast to Coast program. Naturally I began attempting (and still am) to RECONCILE what I know about James Churchward's unique views, with my (admittedly scant) newer understanding about the HE. Lamprecht's view. Dean's view. Cater's view. And the varying views of several group members. Really stimulating stuff the rest of society is missing.
Won't go into another "dissertation" and tire everybody. BUT, although I today think old Churchward DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH and look into what might NOW be going on in Earth's HOLLOW center (AND the HOLLOW centers of ALL planets "REVOLVING on an axis" - and thus "LIVE" planets, in his definition) his explanation about HOW Earth was originally constructed, lends credence to the very existence of an HE.
As you know, Paul, Churchward claimed that ALL that knowledge he presented about Earth's physical creation was perfectly known to Earth's ancient scientists and even the common people, at least 70,000 years back. He maintained (modestly) that all he had done was TRANSLATE ancient stone tablets stored in certain Indian and Tibetan monasteries, into English so people could re-understand today. It is up to each reader to decide whether that remarkable thinker accurately translated such ancient knowledge - or just INVENTED it. But if he did just "invent" the scientific and religious teachings of MU, it is even more remarkable in my opinion, because it is BRILLIANT invention.
- Dick Fojut
---------------------

Paul_Sproviero1:

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

Dean,

Did you get Pari Spolter's book yet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dick Fojut in Tucson

deandddd · April 16, 2001, 11:38am

Frode,

No, I haven't received her book yet.

What interesting comments. I'll be getting in contact with her- I'll invite
her to our list, the site, and I'll ask if she knows about Cater.

Dean

Dick_Fojut · April 16, 2001, 11:51am

Frode... Fair criticism above. Good challenge. I sometimes get carried away by my hardening opinions about the frequent POMPOUS declarations from so many of today's orthodox "scientists." An honest physicist (Dr. Ron Merrill) I heard once on Laura Lee, gave his opinion that "All Science" is CONJECTURE. Good word. So much of what I have read in orthodox (and some alternative) astronomical and geological works is very often just conjecture... theories, but not necessarily factual. Yet too often many of these really unproven theories have been enthroned as "FACTS" mostly because a majority of respected university "scientists" have AGREED among themselves that they are no longer theories but facts.

Most of the followers of those respected "scientists," wanting to be accepted and orthodox (and also keep their jobs), go along in complete agreement. "Accepted" theories that should be CHALLENGED or QUESTIONED, frequently are not.

I speak again, of just one typical example, about that particular orthodox myth that there was an ICE AGE. A near frozen earth for thousands of years, with gigantic twin piles of ice at both poles that would have required most of the water on the entire earth to be HIGH enough to slide DOWNHILL (obeying the law of gravity) from the north as far south into the United States as it was supposed to have reached. And remember, that magnificent miles thick "plastic" sheet of moving ice had to also FIRST clear mountain ranges up to 8,000 feet high, before it could continue "sliding" further south in the U.S. (If you also believe the "accepted Model" that our mountains were uplifted millions of years back... instead of Churchward's assertion that all of Earth's mountains and mountain ranges were uplifted relatively recently, around 15,000 to 10,000 years back, when the great gas belt tunnels formed in the crust across the world and under the oceans.).

Therefore, in my opinion, it is above easily proven that the still "accepted," and totally unquestioned, myth of giant geological glaciers at both poles is "scientific gibberish" and "junk science." Or just call the myth "ABSURD."

If we OBSERVE that most earthly phenomena (from Ocean Depths plus Mountain heights, uplifted by subterranean gas tunnels beneath them, with Volcanos being the tunnel escape valves and Earthquakes being caused by tunnel blocks, to the known geological composition of Earth's rocky crust, etc.) appear to be explained logically by someone's theory, shouldn't we seriously appreciate such a theory? I think so. Churchward has presented that "theory."

Is that just "faith" about - or strong RECOGNITION that a theory MAY be MORE valid than other SIMILAR theories today? I may dump some (or most) of Churchward's "theories," in the future if I discover BETTER overall explanations of the above mentioned phenomena. (I disagree now about some of his other non-geological views). Show me a better(or equal) INCLUSIVE geological explanation for the above mentioned phenomena and I will seriously consider it. Haven't noticed one yet, but I may have missed it. I've changed my mind many times in my life, including about the HE theories. But I still stand by my extreme labeling of that "currently accepted Earth model" described in the book, as seeming to me like "Scientific gibberish".and "junk science"

Dick Fojut.

Frode · April 16, 2001, 2:40pm

Dick,

Spolter was not presenting a new geological explanation. She was criticizing the existing model. OK! Maybe she did not question all of it, but it was a good start and one has to start somewhere.

I am mostly in agreement with what you say. I might question some of it, but I don't even know what that should be since I have no intention of using time on this now.

The current accepted Earth Model is gibberish and junk because it is a dogma rather then science. Science is the way to explore reality, and the only authority in science is reality (the existence of all that is). If you want to understand reality, why don't you call yourself a scientist rather then label yourself as a non-scientist?

Frode

Dick_Fojut · April 16, 2001, 5:08pm

Frode,

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the "Model" was Spoiler's. Sorry if I gave that impression. Unfortunately, you didn't present anything giving her differing views about the paragraph statements. Regardless of the original source, that "currently accepted Earth model" phrase and other "gibberish" statements pushed my irritation button yesterday evening, thus my excessive tirade.

Okay, Frode... you're right. I'll drop that (yes, silly) reference to myself as a "non-scientist." If I attached any label, I probably should have said university untrained, amateur "scientist," but hell, that's unnecessary too. Goodbye labels. Thanks, Frode..

Dick

milan_prsa · April 16, 2001, 6:26pm

UNSUBSCRIBE-SPAMemail !

Dean De Lucia wrote:

Model

milan_prsa · April 16, 2001, 6:31pm

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Questioning the current acceptUNSUBSCRIBE-SPAMemail !