Session 7 October 1994

[dant]

Tschai: You might also be interested in reading:

The Electric Sky : Donald E. Scott
The Electric Universe : Wallace Thornhill, David Talbot

 

[tschai]

Tschai: You might also be interested in reading:

The Electric Sky : Donald E. Scott
The Electric Universe : Wallace Thornhill, David Talbot

Yes, looks like I am going to add to my list of reading (again) Thanks Dant!

 

[Al Today]

Yep theories of magnetism and electricity versus gravity... The so-called scientific community are a duking it out aren't they. Plasma theory makes much more sense to me. The causal gravity thing just never turned me on.

With gravity as the great galactic driver of universal creation, I always wondered... To have gravity, shouldn't there be mass? ( I'm not talking gravity as the Cs say, but as I was taught is public schrewl ). 'Twas a big boom with dirt & dust dust from da boom. They said...

As being taught, I asked, how did a vortex of dust start spinning on it's own anyway? Well... "Gravity.!.!.!" They said. I gave up...

Side note: That same teacher in primary... She asked how rain developed. I said water evaporates, floats up into the sky, makes clouds and comes down as rain. She told me sharply: "NO". Yep, that's teaching that 4th grader who's the boss. Sorry about this. I just had a pissy memory. Smokie time...


Here is a good primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

 

[tschai]

Yep theories of magnetism and electricity versus gravity... The so-called scientific community are a duking it out aren't they. Plasma theory makes much more sense to me. The causal gravity thing just never turned me on.

With gravity as the great galactic driver of universal creation, I always wondered... To have gravity, shouldn't there be mass? ( I'm not talking gravity as the Cs say, but as I was taught is public schrewl ). 'Twas a big boom with dirt & dust dust from da boom. They said...

As being taught, I asked, how did a vortex of dust start spinning on it's own anyway? Well... "Gravity.!.!.!" They said. I gave up...

Side note: That same teacher in primary... She asked how rain developed. I said water evaporates, floats up into the sky, makes clouds and comes down as rain. She told me sharply: "NO". Yep, that's teaching that 4th grader who's the boss. Sorry about this. I just had a pissy memory. Smokie time...


Here is a good primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

I was telling my wife just yesterday that teachers no longer actually teach-they simply rehash what ever drivel the guberment says they have to to meet "requirements" and the kids are pretty much on their own in many cases-and many kids don't care either-school is merely a social club or something to be endured- funny, I used to have a real interest in science, especially Biology and Palentology-but somewhere along the way all interest in Science went the way of the dodo-funny how things like that happen (in my case because I let it happen-no excuses)

 

[Aiming]

This part seems strange:

Q: (L) What is the closest you know to the original God/Creator force?

A: Seek other media. Computer.

A corruption of the channel by Candy?

I also thought it was a corruption, but Candy wasn't present at the session. However, Frank was.

 

[Zadius Sky]

This part seems strange:

Q: (L) What is the closest you know to the original God/Creator force?

A: Seek other media. Computer.

A corruption of the channel by Candy?

I also thought it was a corruption, but Candy wasn't present at the session. However, Frank was.

My first impression from reading that bit wasn't that of a corruption. As I recall, in late 1994, the Cs were trying to get Laura to use the computer to "network." I did a search on the word "computer" in the transcript and this session is the first one that appeared with that word. In Chapter 18 of The Wave, Laura mentioned about Cs were suggesting to her to get on the computer (see: http://cassiopaea.org/2010/05/12/the-wave-chapter-18-all-there-is-is-lessons-or-a-trip-to-alligator-alley/).

osit

 

[bngenoh]

I recently read Clube's "The Origin of Comets" which has a lengthy discussion of solar system formation (since the origin of comets is often connected), and he lays out the history of the theories, how they were "thunk up" and who did what, etc. All I can say is that the theories of the formation of the solar system are totally nonsensical. The Plasma theory makes way more sense.

I have to say after reading the material from the link given by bngenoh it has certainly given me a new outlook- I will not pretend to understand all of it, but it does seem to make way more sense-at least for the formation of stars and accretion discs-but I am still hazy on how such a varied bunch of planets-each with markedly different charecteristics could coalesce out of the disc- I am sure someone with more understanding would say "well, duh! It's really most elementary" (no pun intended) can someone perhaps give us an explanation (in laymens terms, if you please)-this subject is fascinating

Here's the conventional theory:

Scientists believe that the solar system was formed when a cloud of gas and dust in space was disturbed, maybe by the explosion of a nearby star (called a supernova). This explosion made waves in space which squeezed the cloud of gas and dust. Squeezing made the cloud start to collapse, as gravity pulled the gas and dust together, forming a solar nebula. Just like a dancer that spins faster as she pulls in her arms, the cloud began to spin as it collapsed. Eventually, the cloud grew hotter and denser in the center, with a disk of gas and dust surrounding it that was hot in the center but cool at the edges. As the disk got thinner and thinner, particles began to stick together and form clumps. Some clumps got bigger, as particles and small clumps stuck to them, eventually forming planets or moons.

Near the center of the cloud, where planets like Earth formed, only rocky material could stand the great heat. Icy matter settled in the outer regions of the disk along with rocky material, where the giant planets like Jupiter formed. As the cloud continued to fall in, the center eventually got so hot that it became a star, the Sun, and blew most of the gas and dust of the new solar system with a strong stellar wind. By studying meteorites, which are thought to be left over from this early phase of the solar system, scientists have found that the solar system is about 4600 million years old!

Source: _http://www.windows2universe.org/our_solar_system/formation.html

The conventional theory has many problems to say the least. A big problem is that in this model, the highest concentration of mass, would be where the sun formed, therefore the more massive planets should be the ones coming right after the sun, but instead we have the opposite. Note, this is very simplistic, and thus more than likely contains errors.

You may be interested in Planet Birthing and Planet Birthing - more evidence.

Hope that helped. :)

 

[dant]

This part seems strange:

Q: (L) What is the closest you know to the original God/Creator force?

A: Seek other media. Computer.

A corruption of the channel by Candy?

I also thought it was a corruption, but Candy wasn't present at the session. However, Frank was.

My first impression from reading that bit wasn't that of a corruption. As I recall, in late 1994, the Cs were trying to get Laura to use the computer to "network." I did a search on the word "computer" in the transcript and this session is the first one that appeared with that word. In Chapter 18 of The Wave, Laura mentioned about Cs were suggesting to her to get on the computer (see: http://cassiopaea.org/2010/05/12/the-wave-chapter-18-all-there-is-is-lessons-or-a-trip-to-alligator-alley/).

osit

Yes, I do recall this "reminder" in several transcripts,
but why the vector, and the question was not answered?

 

[dant]

One ought to read the books as suggested. Wiki and other sources
do not fully explain the whole book, so better to read it instead?

These books, explains the historical and present state of Astro/Cosmo
mainstream Science, and how its position seems to be on unstable
foundations due to the lack of using true scientific principles.
This is explained.

It was Alvien who has faithfully adhered to the scientific principle,
in attempts to solving the mystery of the cosmos/astronomy, by
defining the hypothesis, obtaining objective data in the study of
the Auroras (plasma), to set up a laboratory to test the hypothesis
with the data obtained, which might lead towards a theory.

FWIW...

 

[tschai]

I recently read Clube's "The Origin of Comets" which has a lengthy discussion of solar system formation (since the origin of comets is often connected), and he lays out the history of the theories, how they were "thunk up" and who did what, etc. All I can say is that the theories of the formation of the solar system are totally nonsensical. The Plasma theory makes way more sense.

I have to say after reading the material from the link given by bngenoh it has certainly given me a new outlook- I will not pretend to understand all of it, but it does seem to make way more sense-at least for the formation of stars and accretion discs-but I am still hazy on how such a varied bunch of planets-each with markedly different charecteristics could coalesce out of the disc- I am sure someone with more understanding would say "well, duh! It's really most elementary" (no pun intended) can someone perhaps give us an explanation (in laymens terms, if you please)-this subject is fascinating

Here's the conventional theory:

Scientists believe that the solar system was formed when a cloud of gas and dust in space was disturbed, maybe by the explosion of a nearby star (called a supernova). This explosion made waves in space which squeezed the cloud of gas and dust. Squeezing made the cloud start to collapse, as gravity pulled the gas and dust together, forming a solar nebula. Just like a dancer that spins faster as she pulls in her arms, the cloud began to spin as it collapsed. Eventually, the cloud grew hotter and denser in the center, with a disk of gas and dust surrounding it that was hot in the center but cool at the edges. As the disk got thinner and thinner, particles began to stick together and form clumps. Some clumps got bigger, as particles and small clumps stuck to them, eventually forming planets or moons.

Near the center of the cloud, where planets like Earth formed, only rocky material could stand the great heat. Icy matter settled in the outer regions of the disk along with rocky material, where the giant planets like Jupiter formed. As the cloud continued to fall in, the center eventually got so hot that it became a star, the Sun, and blew most of the gas and dust of the new solar system with a strong stellar wind. By studying meteorites, which are thought to be left over from this early phase of the solar system, scientists have found that the solar system is about 4600 million years old!

Source: _http://www.windows2universe.org/our_solar_system/formation.html

The conventional theory has many problems to say the least. A big problem is that in this model, the highest concentration of mass, would be where the sun formed, therefore the more massive planets should be the ones coming right after the sun, but instead we have the opposite. Note, this is very simplistic, and thus more than likely contains errors.

You may be interested in Planet Birthing and Planet Birthing - more evidence.

Hope that helped. :)

Well now I do not feel so "dumb" as it seems the "experts" cannot agree upon a mutual theory either-many choosing to stick to conventional (and apparently incorrect, as evidence seems to be mounting) dogma

I am intrigued by the findings that in exo-solar planetary systems Jupiter like worlds-some 10x larger than our Jupiter-actually orbit less than 2 AU ( 1 Astronomic Unit = the distance of Earth from the sun or approximately 93 million miles by way of explanation) but in our solar system we find the Jovian planets FURTHER away from the Sun- we also have nearly circular orbits for our planets while those of exo-planets are more elliptical...there are some interesting dynamics at play here-obviously the original configuration of our solar system is quite diffrent than what we now see.

Another thing which I found was the ancient symbol of the "star and crescent" which ties into this somehow -what did this really signify? It was quite prevalent in antiquity. The article did not explain-only to say that the sky which our ancient ancestors beheld was different and it was NOT the Moon-and this was to symbolize the abode of the "Gods"-what was it and where did it go?

And I WILL read the books as suggested...

 

[bngenoh]

Another thing which I found was the ancient symbol of the "star and crescent" which ties into this somehow -what did this really signify? It was quite prevalent in antiquity. The article did not explain-only to say that the sky which our ancient ancestors beheld was different and it was NOT the Moon-and this was to symbolize the abode of the "Gods"-what was it and where did it go?

Well, the EU guys are saying that it was so prevalent because it was literally seen all across the planet. Basically one of the many forms that Plasma instabilities take, but you gotta take what they say with a grain of salt osit, because their theory has an alignment with Mars, Venus, and Saturn. The question of where the hell is Jupiter, is a big one (pun intended ). If something like Jupiter and Saturn changing orbits took place as it is implied, all i can say is holy frijoles.

But then again, i really don't know much.

 

[tschai]

Another thing which I found was the ancient symbol of the "star and crescent" which ties into this somehow -what did this really signify? It was quite prevalent in antiquity. The article did not explain-only to say that the sky which our ancient ancestors beheld was different and it was NOT the Moon-and this was to symbolize the abode of the "Gods"-what was it and where did it go?

Well, the EU guys are saying that it was so prevalent because it was literally seen all across the planet. Basically one of the many forms that Plasma instabilities take, but you gotta take what they say with a grain of salt osit, because their theory has an alignment with Mars, Venus, and Saturn. The question of where the hell is Jupiter, is a big one (pun intended ). If something like Jupiter and Saturn changing orbits took place as it is implied, all i can say is holy frijoles.

But then again, i really don't know much.

You seem quite knowledgeable from where I'm sitting...I'll keep quiet until I read more. Thanks for your input

 

[JGeropoulas]

The article did not explain-only to say that the sky which our ancient ancestors beheld was different and it was NOT the Moon-and this was to symbolize the abode of the "Gods"-what was it and where did it go?

Here's a link to one of the articles in a fascinating series about "The Saturn Death Cult" which mention the origins of the crescent and star. _http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/from-purple-haze-to-golden-days/ (at the end of this article, which is about #3 in the series.)

The series spans a vast swath of Earth's history from the "Golden Age" of a Saturn-centered system all the way up to "Iron Age" of the military-industrial complex, financed by the Merchant-Banker cartel. It's quite intriguing so I'm cross-checking some things said with what the C's have said. The articles begins when Earth was part of a Saturn-centered system with Earth spinning below Saturn on the same axis, with Venus and Mars being "born" later from Saturn (i.e. Greek/Roman mythology) via electrical forces unleashed as Saturn's plasma sheath periodically encountered the Sun's heliosphere until it was captured and locked into orbit around the Sun. So that would definitely explain how the "sky which our ancient ancestors beheld was different". _http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/a-timeless-age-in-a-purple-haze/

As Saturn migrated closer to the Sun, it acquired rings. As the Sun's equatorial light began to be a factor in the Earth's sky, it illuminated Saturn's rings. Since Earth orbited below Saturn on the same axis, the sunlight created a crescent-shaped light that appeared to moved around Saturn during Earth's rotation, like hands move around a clock.

This was the first marker of "time" for the inhabitants of the Earth, since prior to that period, the electrical field around Saturn caused the diffuse glow of dim light from Saturn to reflect back, blocking out any view of the stars (and there was no seasonal variation, due to the axial nature of the Saturn-Earth system).

 

[cliftonedward]

It's a stretch, but this statement by the C's almost makes it read that God is a computer "A: Seek other media. Computer". There is a period before computer. I've wondered about this answer.

 

[bngenoh]

It's a stretch, but this statement by the C's almost makes it read that God is a computer "A: Seek other media. Computer". There is a period before computer. I've wondered about this answer.

Or more like, we are the computer and God is the internet, ie all the computers connected resulting in one system, one being, the one, osit. It's just the model I have now, but as we know "all models are wrong, but some are useful."