PDA

View Full Version : Eric Dollard, The Sun is Not What we We Have Been Told



Sunny-side-up
30th December 2013, 23:59
You have seen many posts here about the Earth being hollow with a Sun inside it,
well now here is Eric Dollard saying the actual Sun is in fact hollow as-well!
(Sorry if this has already been posted)
I like this mans mind!
He says a lot of very interesting things about our Sun and Earth
The Sun is hollow and dose not have fusion going on in it, it is only a surface, it only has a surface with flares of fusion.
The Sun is a transformer, it transforms from some other dimension! The Sun doesn't burn anything, it's a converter.
You can't see the sun from free space! You can only see material objects in free space, you can't see the sources of light/stars. We only see the Sun and stars because of our upper atmosphere which getting weaker and so we don't see the stars so well now!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asesblfb4zI

DeDukshyn
31st December 2013, 00:42
I didn't watch the video (edit -- watched it now), but the theories briefly posted sound like a mishmash of some hypothetical possibilities, and a bit of complete fantasy as well. While it is true you cannot see light, only it's interaction with matter, we can see the sun due to the interaction of "light" with matter - therefore we can see it from space as well.

In my belief, matter does not create light at all -- this is in my view impossible, and what we see is light interacting with matter (so in a sense this might support the "converter" term). In the case of stars - this interaction is incredibly intense, in context of our sight, we can perceive extremely subtle interactions of light with matter as "illumination".

So in my opinion, some of these claims seems to have "something" to them, but the overall logic is full of holes.

By that's just my 2 cents from my perspective ;) It's always good to consider everything -- even if just for the sake of re-examining the possibilities and probabilities.

ghostrider
31st December 2013, 01:37
Everything you want to know about our sun , told from an 800 year old ET from a civilization 3,500 years ahead of us in science and technology ...http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_515

Flash
31st December 2013, 17:53
there is a few threads on Dollard here on avalon. We even participated in collecting money to rebuilt his laboratory because it seems he is legit. However, it seems as well that he went back to drinking the money.

So, the science would be legit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEHeHeBpl3Y

Nick Matkin
31st December 2013, 21:03
Mr Dollard has claimed in his video:

1) Solar cycles started in the 'early renascence'. Bollocks. That's just when they were first noticed.
2) The ionosphere has 'dissipated' and 'stopped ham radio communication'. Bollocks. I still used the ionosphere for HF communication as did the CAA, BBC, VOA, etc, etc.
3) The Dark Ages were caused by the sun. Bollocks. The Dark Ages refers to a so-called ‘intellectual darkness’.
4) A CME caused the earth's orbit to 'wobble'. Bollocks. The Earth's magnetic field wobbles often, but NOT the orbit.
5) RCA had a 'radio astrology' department. Bollocks! Why would they have an 'astrology' department FFS?
6) You can't see the sun or stars in space. Bollocks. Er... where is the Hubble space telescope? And Project Avalon has many images of the sun from the Soho satellites. Both give pretty good images I think, as do many other optical telescopes out in space.

Come on people, how about applying a little critical thinking to what he's now claiming? It's really not that difficult.

He may once have been a 'deep thinker'. But now he's either just taking the p**s and seeing which nut jobs still take him seriously, or he's lost the plot. Either way I can't take him seriously. He's a joke.

I didn't know he had a drink problem (post #4). Is this true? If so it explains a lot.

Nick

ghostrider
1st January 2014, 02:08
Mr Dollard has claimed in his video:

1) Solar cycles started in the 'early renascence'. Bollocks. That's just when they were first noticed.
2) The ionosphere has 'dissipated' and 'stopped ham radio communication'. Bollocks. I still used the ionosphere for HF communication as did the CAA, BBC, VOA, etc, etc.
3) The Dark Ages were caused by the sun. Bollocks. The Dark Ages refers to a so-called ‘intellectual darkness’.
4) A CME caused the earth's orbit to 'wobble'. Bollocks. The Earth's magnetic field wobbles often, but NOT the orbit.
5) RCA had a 'radio astrology' department. Bollocks! Why would they have an 'astrology' department FFS?
6) You can't see the sun or stars in space. Bollocks. Er... where is the Hubble space telescope? And Project Avalon has many images of the sun from the Soho satellites. Both give pretty good images I think, as do many other optical telescopes out in space.

Come on people, how about applying a little critical thinking to what he's now claiming? It's really not that difficult.

He may once have been a 'deep thinker'. But now he's either just taking the p**s and seeing which nut jobs still take him seriously, or he's lost the plot. Either way I can't take him seriously. He's a joke.

I didn't know he had a drink problem (post #4). Is this true? If so it explains a lot.

Nick

what is scary , in his mind he probably truly believes his theories about the sun ...

Aurelius
1st January 2014, 14:07
see below ...


Mr Dollard has claimed in his video:

1) Solar cycles started in the 'early renascence'. Bollocks. That's just when they were first noticed.
You are correct, this when we started taking measurements, and as a consequence this forms the starting point of the collected data that we now have. I'm surprised Eric said the cycles started in the Renaissance period, he knows better, i can only assume this was an word error on his part or a misinterpretation of what he said.

2) The ionosphere has 'dissipated' and 'stopped ham radio communication'. Bollocks. I still used the ionosphere for HF communication as did the CAA, BBC, VOA, etc, etc.
"....When solar activity is low, ionization is low and the ionosphere generally more stable. Higher frequency operation is less likely except when daily activity is optimum, but lower frequency daytime propagation is improved." (http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/IONO/iono101.htm)

3) The Dark Ages were caused by the sun. Bollocks. The Dark Ages refers to a so-called ‘intellectual darkness’.

4) A CME caused the earth's orbit to 'wobble'. Bollocks. The Earth's magnetic field wobbles often, but NOT the orbit.
i guess we need to ask what causes the earth's axis to be tilted in the first place? .. then we can comment on the adjustment (wobble) of the tilt

5) RCA had a 'radio astrology' department. Bollocks! Why would they have an 'astrology' department FFS?
http://www.n-atlantis.com/nelson.htm

6) You can't see the sun or stars in space. Bollocks. Er... where is the Hubble space telescope? And Project Avalon has many images of the sun from the Soho satellites. Both give pretty good images I think, as do many other optical telescopes out in space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtH3qvYBiY

Come on people, how about applying a little critical thinking to what he's now claiming? It's really not that difficult.

He may once have been a 'deep thinker'. But now he's either just taking the p**s and seeing which nut jobs still take him seriously, or he's lost the plot. Either way I can't take him seriously. He's a joke.

I didn't know he had a drink problem (post #4). Is this true? If so it explains a lot.
Sadly Eric is caught up in drugs (meth) and alcohol. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water (ie. he's done and continues to do great work)

Nick

Hervé
1st January 2014, 14:36
[...]

5) RCA had a 'radio astrology' department. Bollocks! Why would they have an 'astrology' department FFS?

[...]

Nick

Seems he is talking about this (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65043-Carrington-Event-Nov.-13&p=752470&viewfull=1#post752470) (<---- click)

Seems like history is given no other chance than repeat itself:

Eric Dollard -- A Modern-Day Nikola Tesla (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54979-Eric-Dollard-A-Modern-Day-Nikola-Tesla)

So, this is another thread spent on the same issues because the search "function" is being ignored...

Nick Matkin
1st January 2014, 18:01
Well I know the ionosphere has neither 'dissipated' nor 'stopped communications' in the 40-odd years I've been using/studying it. I and many thousands of professionals and amateurs use it daily. It has its ups and downs, but that's normal.


5) RCA had a 'radio astrology' department. Bollocks! Why would they have an 'astrology' department FFS?
http://www.n-atlantis.com/nelson.htm

Very interesting. Perhaps I stand corrected, although 'astronomy' would probably be a more appropriate word. The link also has links to comments from guys (http://www.eham.net/articles/8828) that should know what they're talking about. It was worth a read, but the majority are sceptical, having looked at the results in the study. Thanks.

However, correlation is not the same as causation.

I was an HF propagation engineer for part of my employment for a well-known European broadcaster. For many reasons we were looking for better ways to predict ionospheric propagation for the next season. It was almost entirely based upon predicted solar activity. If anyone had really discovered a link between astrology (and I think in this case we're talking about the basic celestial mechanics of ASTRONOMY) we'd have used it, and the method would have saved so much time and money. I guess it turned out there was no significant link. (I worked with a number of very senior propagation engineers who would surely have been familiar with the theory had it been valid.)

How many astronomers believe the sun and stars are invisible from space? I guess a question to an astronomy forum would sort that out pretty damn quickly!

Nick

yuhui
15th February 2014, 11:46
He actually said there is a China's HAARP. tDcovdN5I7o

which I really wish to know more about……

Demeisen
16th February 2014, 07:37
So if we believe the sun is not visible in space, images like these should not exist, or are fake?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/bestofsoho.html

Nick Matkin
16th February 2014, 09:21
I don't understand why Eric Dollard says some of that stuff, or why there are a few who agree. I mean, where's the Hubble telescope? Right out above the Earth's atmosphere!

If he's right, why would it be "A Big Secret"? It would have been speculated about before we went into space, and confirmed when we got there. If it hadn't been speculated before, then it would have been a big surprise when we discovered the sun and stars were invisible and would no doubt have been splashed across the papers: "Scientists, Astronomers Baffled at Invisibility of Stars, Sun from Space!"

There are images from probes looking back at Earth, Moon, stars and Sun from millions of miles away, unless you assume that stuff is all fake, but why?

Anyway, I've seen the stars from space on Fireball XL5, Star Trek, Dr Who, Star Wars and loads of other films and shows. They can't all be wrong...

Nick

superconsciousness
16th February 2014, 11:55
To Whom It May Apply:

PULL MY THUMB...

Aragorn
16th February 2014, 14:00
In my belief, matter does not create light at all -- this is in my view impossible, and what we see is light interacting with matter (so in a sense this might support the "converter" term). In the case of stars - this interaction is incredibly intense, in context of our sight, we can perceive extremely subtle interactions of light with matter as "illumination".


I would like to address the highlighted part of this quote... From the physics point of view, light is made up of photons, whether one sees photons as particles or as waves - as per the wave/particle duality in quantum physics.

The very fact that excited matter gives off photons is well-described in physics and was first officially described by Albert Einstein. Furthermore, I would also like to point at the phenomenon of Cherenkov radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation), which happens when particles are travelling through a medium in which they move faster than the phase velocity of light itself inside this particular medium.

In a vacuum, the speed of light is defined as the universal constant c - i.e. approximately 299'700 km/sec - but when light passes through a particular translucent medium such as water, glass or something similar, the speed at which the light passes through the medium - i.e. the phase velocity, as light has to get around the molecules making up for the medium - is slower than c, and how much slower that will be depends on the actual medium. For instance, scientists have managed to bring light completely to a stop by shining it through a supercooled fluid, or otherwise put, a Bose-Einstein condensate, at a temperature near absolute zero.

Now, due to the differences between photons and other particles such as for instance electrons, it is quite possible that electrons might have a higher phase velocity in a particular medium than photons, and in that case, the electrons (or other non-photonic particles) excite the surrounding molecules of the medium in such a way that these molecules give off light, typically of a blue or bluish color, and this light is then called Cherenkov radiation.

One does not have to look so far, of course. Just look at how incandescent light bulbs work, or the principle of red-, yellow- or white-glowing metal when it's being heated to certain temperatures. Or the magma of the earth, which is nothing other than extremely hot rock in liquid and gaseous forms. After all, heating up matter is simply the same thing as providing said matter with more energy, so that the molecules start resonating at a higher frequency.

So that brings us to the question "What is 'to create light'?" If one feels that the light is really being created by the excited matter, then your statement would be false. If on the other hand one maintains the scientifically more correct interpretation that all matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, then the matter making up for the medium did not create light, but simply released some of its energy, and then your statement is scientifically correct. ;-)

As for how the eye perceives light, that in itself is of course a matter of refraction. The light impacts the retina, and our nervous system sends that signal to our brain, which then converts the information into something we visually perceive. There are also ample other frequencies beyond the spectrum of (human-)visible light, and animals may or may not be better equipped to see those frequencies as well. Cats and dogs for instance can see in the ultraviolet spectrum. Snakes can see in the infrared spectrum (and as such, they see heat signatures, which helps them locate their prey).


Namaste. ;-)

Gerald Paris
16th February 2014, 18:53
Here, another perspective can be found.

http://www.suspicious0bservers.org

Sidney
16th February 2014, 19:08
To Whom It May Apply:

PULL MY THUMB...

ROTFLMAO good one surfer

Atlas
16th February 2014, 20:36
The sun seen from space:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/350324/EARTH-AND-SUN.jpg

The stars seen from space:

http://i43.fastpic.ru/thumb/2012/0914/d8/f8b46da399eb6a312e2970eb8e61b8d8.jpeg

If you can't see the stars at night, it's either because you are too close from a town or because there are too many clouds. If there are no lights and no clouds, no moon and if the ground is flat, you will see the milky way on a 180 deg. angle. It is beautiful to see.

http://www.observatorij.org/News/lastovo/IMG_0126P-s.jpg

Sunny-side-up
16th February 2014, 22:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heXNrup-_b0

conk
18th February 2014, 18:09
Victor Shauberger has some interesting questions about the Sun. Amazing man!

http://merlib.org/questionsforscience