How do you know that google and what you looked at is correct?
Session 12 September 1998
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
christx11
Jedi Master
Jupiter is about 44,423 miles to its center.
Saturn is about 37,449 miles to its center.
C's said that at Earth's center is a crystalline ammonia core. We can hold that as a hypothesis. Nothing in our science mentions a crystalline ammonia core for earth.
Jupiter according to our science is about 86% hydrogen, 13.6% helium, the rest: ammonia, water, methane, sulfides, other gases. But that is all based on the level of our science. Our science only speculates about Jupiter's core and much of the inner layers. I can bet that our science has a lot wrong about what is inside that 45,000 miles of Jupiter's atmosphere.
Saturn is about 37,449 miles to its center.
C's said that at Earth's center is a crystalline ammonia core. We can hold that as a hypothesis. Nothing in our science mentions a crystalline ammonia core for earth.
Jupiter according to our science is about 86% hydrogen, 13.6% helium, the rest: ammonia, water, methane, sulfides, other gases. But that is all based on the level of our science. Our science only speculates about Jupiter's core and much of the inner layers. I can bet that our science has a lot wrong about what is inside that 45,000 miles of Jupiter's atmosphere.
Attachments
Myeong In
The Force is Strong With This One
Sure I don’t know.
I tried to look for alternatives source but it seems only NASA explored Jupiter.
According to wiki
NASA sent a prob in 1995 to collect data. I find this intriguing from wiki about the Galileo project
it seems to me that scientists already know the composition before they launched the exploration. But it does not tell how they can know in advance.
I am not sure what does C mean by “dominant gas” but wiki does tell ammonia plays a key role for the color difference of the Jupiter atmosphere.
Hi Breo, Thanks for commenting, sorry lately I do not have much notion of time, at the moment I am in a very intense period emotionally of family and personal nature, related to the dream at first I had a strong feeling of thinking about physical death, it is strong, I think maybe there is a natural rejection to think about it, on the other hand is strange this immaterial side, of dreams or thoughts, years before my father's death, I had another peculiar dream, I was not at my parents' house where I used to live, I was traveling and my father was sick in bed, then my father and I connected through a dream in the same day, I dreamt that he was going to pick me up at the airport, he and I met at the airport, that is, we both saw each other in this place and the next day I talked to my parents' house and my mother told me that my father also had a dream where he saw me at the airport.
I found this part very interesting, thank you Laura, C's and all the people involved in sharing this work, I've taken a quick look and I can't find a more neutral definition of "hyperkinetic" online beyond being a cognitive problem, I wonder if it is deliberate to present this concept information in this way, because obviously the pharmaceutical industry benefits from selling drugs for children.
Well, beyond that, lately I have felt that existence in this 3D is quite complex, personally I feel that having the experience of pain makes have rejection, although pain, physical or emotional, is something very strong that perhaps could create a refusal to learn the lessons we have to go through, perhaps it also offers opportunities to see into the depths of our interior for universal truths.
I wonder if you can really have a broad enough human perspective without dying, to expand your being to a cosmic level, or maybe this is part of shifting from 3D to 4D. I don't know if the previous thought is well articulated, it's just that for the moment I have felt that the experience of "feeling" can be very intense, and it has brought me the sensation of "pain", but it has also made me think a lot at the same time how sometimes we ourselves can refuse to "feel", even without realizing it, like an automatic response.
Thanks for posting this session - it was … dense!
As to the methane/ ammonia core: I’,m reading a book by Thomas Gold The Deep Hot Biosphere - The Myth of Fossil Fuels.
The author makes a good point that hydrocarbons (oil and gas) are not of fossil origin (organic matter deposited and ‘fossilized’ in the sedimentary strata), but mostly methane from deep underground that seeps upwards through igenous rock fissures and is condensed and chemically altered to all the other hydrocarbons we use in daily life. That is also one of the reasons for the pheomenon of ‘replenishing’ oil wells. Some Russian scientist independently proposed the same theory at about the same time, but unbeknownst to him (as at the time it was hard to access scientific material from the Soviet Union).
So the fact that the core of our planet is mostly methane and ammonia ties nicely into this theory - we are literally sitting on an ocean of oil (Gold proposes that our oil reserves, if we only drilled igneous rock at sufficient depth would last for another 500’000 years even if consumption increases as it has in the past). But because geologists don’t subscribe to this theory, nobody drills into igneous rock, but Gold did in Sweden - he found oil at a depth of around 7km, but not in commercial quantities. But it proved his theory, because according to common wisdom he found oil where no oil should have been found.
Finally the experiment had to be abandoned, because the drills using water as drilling fluid (to not contaminate the drill hole with oil which is normally used) clogged up with a dense paste they identified as a derivative of graphene.
I guess this is another example of scientific dogma - but I wonder if the Russians have taken this theory on board at least partially, and if this is the reason they found so many oil fields in the Arctic.
As to the methane/ ammonia core: I’,m reading a book by Thomas Gold The Deep Hot Biosphere - The Myth of Fossil Fuels.
The author makes a good point that hydrocarbons (oil and gas) are not of fossil origin (organic matter deposited and ‘fossilized’ in the sedimentary strata), but mostly methane from deep underground that seeps upwards through igenous rock fissures and is condensed and chemically altered to all the other hydrocarbons we use in daily life. That is also one of the reasons for the pheomenon of ‘replenishing’ oil wells. Some Russian scientist independently proposed the same theory at about the same time, but unbeknownst to him (as at the time it was hard to access scientific material from the Soviet Union).
So the fact that the core of our planet is mostly methane and ammonia ties nicely into this theory - we are literally sitting on an ocean of oil (Gold proposes that our oil reserves, if we only drilled igneous rock at sufficient depth would last for another 500’000 years even if consumption increases as it has in the past). But because geologists don’t subscribe to this theory, nobody drills into igneous rock, but Gold did in Sweden - he found oil at a depth of around 7km, but not in commercial quantities. But it proved his theory, because according to common wisdom he found oil where no oil should have been found.
Finally the experiment had to be abandoned, because the drills using water as drilling fluid (to not contaminate the drill hole with oil which is normally used) clogged up with a dense paste they identified as a derivative of graphene.
I guess this is another example of scientific dogma - but I wonder if the Russians have taken this theory on board at least partially, and if this is the reason they found so many oil fields in the Arctic.
Thanks for posting this session - it was … dense!
As to the methane/ ammonia core: I’,m reading a book by Thomas Gold The Deep Hot Biosphere - The Myth of Fossil Fuels.
The author makes a good point that hydrocarbons (oil and gas) are not of fossil origin (organic matter deposited and ‘fossilized’ in the sedimentary strata), but mostly methane from deep underground that seeps upwards through igenous rock fissures and is condensed and chemically altered to all the other hydrocarbons we use in daily life. That is also one of the reasons for the pheomenon of ‘replenishing’ oil wells. Some Russian scientist independently proposed the same theory at about the same time, but unbeknownst to him (as at the time it was hard to access scientific material from the Soviet Union).
So the fact that the core of our planet is mostly methane and ammonia ties nicely into this theory - we are literally sitting on an ocean of oil (Gold proposes that our oil reserves, if we only drilled igneous rock at sufficient depth would last for another 500’000 years even if consumption increases as it has in the past). But because geologists don’t subscribe to this theory, nobody drills into igneous rock, but Gold did in Sweden - he found oil at a depth of around 7km, but not in commercial quantities. But it proved his theory, because according to common wisdom he found oil where no oil should have been found.
Finally the experiment had to be abandoned, because the drills using water as drilling fluid (to not contaminate the drill hole with oil which is normally used) clogged up with a dense paste they identified as a derivative of graphene.
I guess this is another example of scientific dogma - but I wonder if the Russians have taken this theory on board at least partially, and if this is the reason they found so many oil fields in the Arctic.
i have read this before and i note this so i can find it again. or is there a better trick??
Claus
Dagobah Resident
danke...There is a sybol above the post: View attachment 83850here you can bookmark thepost.
Myeong In
The Force is Strong With This One
I found another occasion (session 2001 oct 31st ) where C mentions planet core is made of ammonia crystalline.