Pole Shift Not Necessary

[Guest guest]

Members

 

Dharma/Dean

 

Here is the beginning of an article which I am doing up:

 

 

In his famous book, The Arctic Home in the Vedas, Bal Gangahar Tilak

begins by bringing up two points for the consideration of the reader:

That the Arctic area had a tropical climate at one point, and that

the sea level was lower, exposing more land mass.

 

The typical argument justifying a tropical climate for the Arctic

area is that of a pole shift, that the Arctic might have enjoyed a

different latitude in the past. This is possible. It is also possible

that a cloud mantle, as Venus enjoys, could have brought about both

effects- a warmer climate as well as a lower sea level.

 

First of all, let us consider the model of the planet Venus which

mainstream astronomy has given us. Supposedly, the cloud mantle

around Venus has caused a greenhouse effect such that the

temperatures are reported to be around 900* F. Even so, the Venera

Nine probe sent a smaller probe to the surface of Venus by parachute.

This is unlikely as the material of any parachute would not have

survived such temperatures. ( Or maybe the temperatures are

unlikely ) Also, the atmosphere of Venus is reported to be permeated

with sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid at those temperatures would leave

the surface of Venus looking like a " blob," ( Joseph H. Cater )

rather than exhibiting the sharp features which radar mapping probes

have sent back to us.

 

The idea that such a cloud mantle around the Earth or any planet

would have the effect of distributing the heat evenly in terms of

latitude has been espoused by Joseph H. Cater in his book The

Ultimate Reality. Mr. Cater goes outside of the parameters of

mainstream science in order to give justification to the existence of

such a mantle. He tells us that the Sun's rays, passing through such

a mantle miles thick, would arrive at the surface containing a higher

ratio of soft particles – something like neutrinos- than what we

currently experience. The Sun's rays already contain such particles

along with the photons which we so readily perceive. The

transformation is intensified as the rays pass through the atmosphere

of planets -even more so through a cloud mantle- as photons jumble

together and stick to each other, forming aggregates which can be

termed soft particles. ( Prana )

 

The higher content of soft particles in the atmosphere would have

many effects, one of them being the absorption of the harder

particles which we perceive as heat. Thus a cloud canopy miles thick

would not only diminish the sea levels below by transferring a

significantamount of the water held in the oceans to the atmosphere,

but a canopy would regulate and distribute the heat as well.

 

And not only would an atmosphere with a higher soft-particle content

distribute the heat in terms of latitude, but in terms of altitude as

well. When we consider that gravity effects are due to an

electromagnetic radiation, then an atmosphere ionized by soft

particles would exhibit a more uniformly distributed density. This

explains the Puranic descriptions of heavenly climates in the

Himalayan regions, such as Kashmir. Again, the surface conditions on

each planet are dependent on the atmospheric shell, and a thick cloud

mantle suspended in the middle of the atmosphere would create these

conditions.

 

The falling of the cloud mantle might explain the Biblic account of a

forty-days and forty-nights rain. It might also explain how the

effects of Kali Yuga were brought about; with no cloud canopy, the

soft particle, " prana " atmosphere would no longer be generated

below, and the surface of the planet would be exposed to the

unrefined rays of the Sun, thereby degrading the condition of life on

the surface.

 

Such an explanation is necessary to establish that the descriptions

which Tilak attributed to the Arctic Home of the Vedas could easily

have been spoken from the Arctic areas to which he attributed them.