Chapter VII - The Sun


From a very ancient Hindu writing


Scientists who have made a study of the sun tell us that the diameter of the sun is 832,000 miles, and her circumference is 2,773,000 miles.

How can the actual size of the sun be stated when it is taken into consideration that the actual body of the sun has never been seen ? All that can be seen of the sun is the double layer of opaque, impenetrable specialized clouds. The actual thickness of these clouds is unknown. They cannot be measured, their thickness can only be guessed at.


Then, beyond these clouds, there is a space between them and the sun filled with dark impenetrable parent rays. The thickness or diameter of this space is immeasurable. Beyond these parent rays comes the sun. On what basis, with the foregoing facts before me, the sun's size can be measured, I cannot conceive.

It has been advanced by some scientists that sun spots are visions of the actual body of the sun. I do not think so. My belief is that a sun spot is a rift in the clouds, disclosing the dark parent rays coming from the sun before they arrive at the double layer of clouds to be divided and filtered out.

During the passage of the parent rays through the sun's double layer of specialized clouds and the specialized atmosphere, the parent rays are first divided and then filtered out into the separate rays, and then shot through space. Some of these filtered-out rays are of the light variety, others are of the dark ultra-invisible kind of which there are over 90 per cent.


This percentage is higher than given in our scientific works, but then, there is a division of these dark rays, so ultra as to become extremes to any possible measurement. I speak of that section of the sun's rays which carry the affinitive forces, affinitive to the forces of her controlling sun, but not affinitive to the forces emanating from the various bodies forming the solar system.

Hershel, the great scientist, who probably made a deeper and more exhaustive study of the sun than any other man, wrote:

"Sun spots are the actual body of the sun showing through a rift in the double layer of clouds which surround its body."

I shall now draw a comparison between the sun and the planet Saturn. Saturn has a ring surrounding her body. If this ring was extended in such a manner as to cover her whole body like the specialized clouds cover the sun's body, then Saturn would appear to be many times larger than her actual size.

How much greater is the diameter of the sun's double layer of clouds than her actual body? Has this ever been determined and by what means?

I am impressed with the facts that as the actual body of the sun has never been seen, the thickness of the double layer of opaque clouds surrounding her has never been determined, and the distance between these clouds and the sun's body is unknown, that all conclusions that have been arrived at regarding the size of the sun are subject to correction.



Scientists have computed and published the weight of the sun, saying,

"The weight of the sun is 730 times the weight of the earth and all the planets combined."

How any scientist can associate weight with any celestial body, I cannot comprehend, because in space a body has no weight. In space the largest celestial body has not the weight of a thistledown.

Weight, as it is known, is the measurement of the draw or pull of a cold magnetic force on elements. The force emanates from the body itself. This cold magnetic force attracts and draws the elements of the body toward the magnet from which the force emanates. The power of this attraction represents weight.

As an example we will take the earth.


Eliminate the cold magnetic force, and then, regardless of the size or density of the matter, it would have no weight. Walking off the roof of a house, you would float in the air and be incapable of coming to the ground; all loose matter which might leave the surface of the earth would float off and become lost in space until it came into the atmosphere of a revolving body having a cold magnetic force. Then it would be drawn to its surface. Meteorites are an example of this phenomenon.

It is possible that the cold magnetic force of the sun is 730 times stronger than those of the earth and planets combined, but weight? No!



Scientific works that are orthodox tell us that the sun is "an exceedingly hot, super-heated body."

Herschel did not agree with the orthodox.


He wrote:

"The sun may be a cool body."

From the various works written about the sun which I have studied, the impression is left that scientists have based their opinions that the sun's body has a very high temperature from readings of the spectrum and on the erroneous belief that:

"The sun disperses her heat throughout the solar system."
"The earth's heat comes directly from the sun."

They have made no study to determine what heat is, nor its manner of working.


Their writings must therefore be what they are, mere guesses, and very erroneous at that. I have heretofore devoted a section to heat, showing what it is, whence it emanates, and how it works. We meet phenomena at every step showing most conclusively that our heat docs not come from the sun but is an earthly force.

Another phenomenon which confirms the fact that we do not derive our heat directly from the sun, and that the sun docs not distribute its heat throughout the solar system, as is being taught today in our educational establishments, is shown during the earth's elliptical orbit.

I will take the northern hemisphere as an example. Twice during the year the sun is millions of miles nearer the earth than at other times. During the fall and spring the sun is millions of miles nearer the earth than in the summer. If the sun is 'he source of heat, when the earth is millions of miles nearer the source we ought to experience a higher temperature during the spring and fall, but do we? We do not!


We experience a middle temperature, clearly proving that our heat does not come directly from the sun, thus bearing out the writings that have been handed down to us from the first great civilization.

The deduction that the sun is an exceedingly hot superheated body has been determined by the spectroscope. This in itself is the greatest absurdity because the spectroscope docs not register temperatures. It cannot, because it does not register the rays which carry the heat force. This I personally have proved in a court of law as an expert witness. Our scientists in their writings about the sun have totally ignored the natural workings of the forces. Nature's tools and means have been cast to the winds.

I have made many interesting experiments with the optical pyrometer, which is a form of spectroscope, the foundation of both being a prism. Some of these were given in the section on heat - chapter 3.

I could go on almost indefinitely with similar demonstrations. The chemical tag CiťHiŤ is not in it with the prism.


I must reiterate to impress my readers thoroughly that:

It is absolutely impossible to measure temperature with a prism of any form, for this reason: the prism docs not record heat-carrying rays. On the other hand, it repels them, because the prism is clear white, the heat-carrying rays are dark; white repels dark as was shown in Tyndall's experiment.

The prism records light rays only which carry no heat. Basing mine on Tyndall's, I made the following experiment:

  • First I took a cell filled with a clear solution of alum water, which allowed the free transmission of the light rays with their forces.

  • After passing through the solution with the aid of a lens, I focused them

  • Then with an optical pyrometer I measured the temperature of the bright spot at the focus point.

The pyrometer said it was 2500° F to 2600° F.


I then put an ordinary thermometer at the focus point, letting the focus fall on the bulb of the thermometer. The temperature remained stationary at atmospheric, which was 68° F.

I then changed the cell, using the iodine solution, which allowed the dark rays with their forces free transmission. There was no bright spot at the focus point, and the pyrometer registered no rise over atmospheric. I then placed the bulb of the thermometer at the focus point. The mercury climbed rapidly to the top, then the thermometer burst. And the prism or optical pyrometer is what our scientists have been measuring the temperature of our and other suns with.

The halo of clouds which surround the sun are said to contain elements with which we are acquainted, but with us they are in a solid state. This phenomenon appears to be another reason for our scientists to say the sun is a hot superheated body.


This phenomenon is no criterion whatever. Many of our solid elements can be turned into gaseous clouds without involving high temperatures. Release the oxygen from the oxide and it becomes very simple. Many examples will be found in books on chemistry.


Have we not many of the so-called solid elements permeating our atmosphere?

Now comes the question,

  • Do these elements actually exist in the sun's clouds and atmosphere?

  • Or are the sun's clouds and atmosphere free of these elements?

This is a very open question. I will start by assuming that the spectroscope does actually register these elements.


If so, it is by colors naturally. Between the sun's clouds and atmosphere and the spectroscope, the earth's atmosphere intervenes - it comes between the two.


All these elements claimed to be in the sun's clouds and atmosphere, analysis tells us exist in the earth's atmosphere. May it not be that the spectroscope is registering that which is in the earth's atmosphere and not anything in the sun's?

A ray partakes of the color of any substance which it passes through. The proofs are: take an incandescent lamp, and let it fall on a sheet of white paper. No color appears. But place colored glasses between the lamp and the paper, red, blue, yellow, green, orange, mauve, or any other color.


Directly the colored glass intervenes between the lamp and the paper, the paper changes to the color of the glass, whatever it may be. Apply a similar test with the spectroscope of the sun's clouds and atmosphere, using the earth's atmosphere to represent the colored glass.


What will be the result ?




Various scientific works state that:

"The sun is constantly sending forth flames hundreds of thousands of miles long."
"The heat of the solar system is derived directly from the sun."

These two assertions are absolutely untenable. Records show that the ancients of the motherland and the Hindus 25,000 years ago knew better, and their knowledge was confirmed by the Mayas, Nahuatls, and Egyptians of later date.

The sun's so-called flames are rays - rays without heat. They are without heat because they are of the light visible kind which carry no heat.

As the sun's rays which we see are of the light variety and as light rays do not carry heat, it is proof positive that the sun's flashings which we see are cold and therefore not flames.

The sun's body lies within an envelope of specialized clouds, impenetrable by human vision or by present man's devices.

Rays leave the sun's body in the form of dark ultra-invisible parent rays. These rays are the carriers of the sun's forces, which forces have been drawn from its body by the affinitive magnetic forces of its superior or governing sun. On passing through the sun's double layer of clouds and atmosphere, these parent rays are divided and filtered out into single rays.


Then in the sun's atmosphere, the light division becomes visible to the human eye. Beyond the sun's atmosphere, they cannot be seen, because rays have to pass through an atmosphere to become visible. Atmosphere is composed of elements. Beyond the sun's atmosphere there are no elements, until the atmosphere of the next celestial body is met.

As soon as the sun's rays with their forces arrive at the earth's atmosphere, those forces affinitive to earthly forces-commence their work. Thus the sun's rays which are affinitive to the earth's light force set it in motion, and the phenomenon of "daylight" or "sunlight" is the result.

Flames result from the combustion of elements. Flames of the magnitude of the sun's flashings would have consumed the body of the sun many millions of years ago, notwithstanding it may be 832,000 miles in diameter. Then today there would be no sun, and all of the members of the solar system, including the earth, would be dead - aimless wanderers in space.

Flames are super-heated elementary gases coming from a combustion. Combustion is a thermo-analysis of a substance whereby the solid is transformed into elementary gases. Thus, if the scientists are correct, the sun has been deliberately trying to commit suicide for the past millions upon millions of years. The sun is not so foolish as to attempt such a thing.


Such a contention therefore cannot be maintained for a moment on either a scientific or any reasonable basis.



The sun does not emit huge flames of fire. I have often wondered whether the scientist who invented "the sun's flames" and those who believe in the invention ever stopped to consider that they are advocating the possibility of elements traveling thousands of times faster than lightning.

For, if it is flames that die sun is sending forth, then it must be elements.


Some very interesting question could be put to the inventor of the "sun's flames" regarding velocity and resistance, when he asserts that elements can be made to travel faster than forces. That is, elements can be made to travel thousands of times faster than lightning. Earthly examples of the sun's flashings are the Borealis and an ordinary searchlight. Both are cold. There is no heat in either of them.


Combustion is unnecessary to produce visible rays, for visible rays emanate from our radio-active elements when they are cold, such as radium, uranium, and thorium, also from fireflies, glowworms, and some fishes.

It is impossible that the bodies of the solar system can obtain their heat from the sun, because heat is a force that requires room space in elements, and without elements heat cannot exist; between the sun and the various bodies of the solar system, there are tens of millions of miles of space without elementary matter, simply an essence. Over these gulfs there are no bridges.


How is heat going to get across?

All creations are duplications. It would therefore appear to be a fact beyond controversy that the great rays and their forces are drawn from the sun by the governing sun, and in a manner similar to that in which the electro-magnetic division of the earth's primary force are drawn from her body by the affinitive forces of the sun.


Of the fact that the sun's forces are being drawn from its body by the affinitive magnetic forces of its governing sun there is proof positive in the fact that the sun's poles oscillate and the sun revolves on her axis.

The sun's polar regions must be regularly magnetized and de-magnetized, otherwise the poles could not oscillate. This phenomenon is explained in section, "The Earth's Pendulum."

Earthly forces are constantly being drawn from the earth's body out into the atmosphere by affinitive forces of the sun. We can neither see these forces leave the earth's body, nor can we see them when out in the atmosphere. The effects of the sun's forces are seen in her atmosphere. This may be due to either the specialized character of her atmosphere or to her volume or both.


Although volumes of forces constantly leave the earth's body, we do not see their effect because the volume is too low to cause incandescence in the atmosphere. It is only when the atmosphere becomes overcharged and the surplus aggregates, concentrates, and returns to the earth, that we see any effect.

There is the possibility that the sun's flashings which we see may be the incandescence of her atmosphere caused by a sufficient volume of forces passing through it at a sufficient velocity to cause its incandescence.



It is quite reasonable to assume that the sun has a very much specialized atmosphere, in many respects similar to the earth's atmosphere, only much more highly specialized.

Again, without question the sun's atmosphere extends an immense distance from her double layer of clouds. Her atmosphere no doubt extends out far beyond the limit of her flashings, because it requires a certain amount of density to become incandescent.

I do not think anything of a definite nature is known about the sun's atmosphere. There have been many scientific guesses, but when analyzed, they all show that they are guesses and speculations pure and simple.


All lack a foundation.



Drayson, writing, says:

'The sun is revolving around a center and is traveling at the rate of 40 miles per second, 3456,000 miles per hour, and 1,264,440,000 miles during one of our years."

"The sun's orbit is 33,000,000,000,000,000 miles."

"Our sun takes 71,000 years to make her orbit around her governing sun."

Proctor, writing, says:

"The sun revolves on her axis once in 16 days of our time."

"The sun's poles oscillate once in every 11 years of our time."

The foregoing from noted scientists gives all of the essential points for argument and demonstration that I require.

Proctor states that 11 years of our time constitutes one sun's year. Some scientists may object to my interpretation of Proctor's writings and say that one sun's year constitutes a complete orbit around her governing sun. Against this is a complete oscillation of the sun's poles, thereby giving the four seasons if she has seasons.


If Drayson's figures are correct and Proctor's as well, then it takes the sun 6500 of her own years to make her orbit around her governing sun.

The poles of a sphere might oscillate any number of times during a circuit around her governing sun, and each complete oscillation would constitute a year. I have been unable to find any scientist stating the number of degrees the sun's poles travel from their mean position.


Virtually all scientists agree on the following:

  • The sun revolves on her axis, and

  • The sun's poles oscillate.

In these two facts is a foundation to "work upon to show and determine beyond all doubt and controversy the actual temperature of the sun.


First we must see what conditions are necessary to enable a sphere to revolve on its axis where magnetic forces are the agents involved. A spherical body to revolve on its axis through the agency of forces must be governed by a superior body.

The superior body must also be revolving on its axis to generate controlling forces. To enable a sphere to revolve on her axis, it must be generating affinitive magnetic forces.

Some, at least, of the magnetic forces emanating from each of the bodies must be affinitive to each other.

For a sphere to generate magnetic forces by revolving, the sphere must have a hard outside crust and a soft center. Otherwise no frictional line could be established, and without a frictional line, no forces could be generated or regenerated. The sun revolves on her axis, therefore

The sun has a hard crust and a soft center. As the crust of the sun is hard, it is impossible that she can be the hot super-heated body claimed by scientists, because, if she were, her elementary body would be quickly turned into gases, and she would become a nebula, without a frictional line and generating no forces of any description.


A nebula has no poles, therefore she could not spin on her axis. Revolving gases do not produce governing forces.


Herschel was right when he wrote,

"The sun may be a cool body."

It is. His only error was he did not bring forth reasonable proofs to uphold his theory. His was an omission and not a scientific sin.

Forces cannot exist in a super-heated body. They require a cool storehouse. Neither can they be generated or regenerated in anything but a super-heated frictional line. I think the foregoing is supplying reasonable proofs that The sun is a cool body.

Therefore she is not an exceedingly hot super-heated body. Being a cool body, she does not disperse heat throughout the solar system. Furthermore
All revolving bodies throughout the universe are cool bodies.

By cool I do not mean frigid. I mean that their surface temperatures are not sufficiently high to melt elements, turning them into gases, but low enough for generated forces to be stored in.

If further proof is wanted that the sun is a cool body, it will be found above. There I have shown that heat is an earthly force. This is not a new discovery. It is only a re-discovery, being well known to our forefathers, the scientists of the earth's first great civilization, tens of thousands of years ago.

Our sun's governing sun has never been seen, and probably never will be for the following reasons:

  • First, according to Drayson it would be 12,000,000,000,000,000 miles away, which is beyond the reach of our telescopes. If Drayson is right, then all of the celestial bodies which we see are under this superior sun's control.


  • Second, to control such a system, forces would be generated so intense as to be beyond all of our imagination, and such forces could only be carried in the intense invisible dark rays.

Thus a black halo would surround her body, making her body invisible.


She being invisible, her rays would pass through space unseen and unknown except for their effect on the celestial bodies which we can see.



As the sun has a hard crust and a soft or molten center, and is revolving on its axis, it no doubt is generating forces somewhat similar to those generated by the earth.


On account of the sun's size and velocity, the forces generated by her must necessarily be far more intense and powerful than the forces generated by the earth.

Magnetic forces are being generated, since the sun has a central frictional line.

Light forces are being generated, because they show in her atmosphere; also she has light forces, which are affinitive to the earth's light force.

Heat forces are being generated, because she has heat forces which are affinitive to the earth's heat force.

A centrifugal force is being generated, because she is a revolving sphere.

A gyroscopical force is being generated, as shown by the oscillation of her poles.

Her crust is hard and cool, because she stores magnetic forces in it for her superior sun to draw on and revolve her, and because her polar regions are being super-magnetized and dc-magnetized, as shown by the oscillation of her poles.

As our sun revolves on her axis, she has a governing sun, whose forces are infinitely stronger than the forces of our sun.

The forces of the governing sun must be affinitive to some of the forces of our sun, but not to all, because if the forces of the governing sun were affinitive to all of our sun's forces, then the governing sun's forces would be affinitive to earthly forces.


Then, the forces of the governing sun being so much more powerful than those of our sun, the governing sun's forces would draw the earth and all the planets out of the solar system and bring them under her own direct control. We should then revolve around the governing sun instead of our own.


As we are not under the direct control of the governing sun, it shows that the earth's forces are neutral to those of the governing sun. It also shows that our sun is generating intense forces which are neutral to the earth's, but affinitive to those of the governing sun. It is the dark, ultra-invisible rays which carry these intense forces of the sun, which I have referred to when I said the dark radiation from our sun was over 90 per cent of her total radiation.

A celestial body which does not revolve on her axis cannot possibly be generating any forces. She is a dead one. The body will have forces, but, like her elements, they will be latent and inactive. All elements are associated with forces, and all forces are associated with elements.


Even a non-revolving body has forces, but they are inactive, bottled up, so to speak.




Proctor, writing, says:

"The sun is a magnet."

Of course the sun is a magnet. How could it be otherwise? For all of the forces which the sun is sending through the solar system are magnetic, with one exception - her centrifugal force.

Proctor quotes the variations of the magnetic needle during the hours of sunlight by saying:

"The magnetic needle makes an effort during the hours of sunlight to turn towards the sun. When the sun is at its meridian, the magnetic needle has its mean position."

"There is an extreme and a minimum variation of the magnetic needle during a period of 11 years."

During the morning hours, the needle is drawn towards the east.


At noon it points due north, and in the afternoon it dips towards the west, as shown in my cut. In this cut the movements of the needle are very much exaggerated, so the picture must be looked upon as typical rather than actual. It is thus drawn so that the movements of the needle may be thoroughly understood.

On above image I showed what the magnetic needle was and that it contained a super-volume of a magnetic force coming out of the electro-magnetic division of the primary force. All forces in this division are extremely affinitive to certain of the sun's forces - so that the force in the magnetic needle was attracted and drawn by all of the sun's affinitive forces. While the effect of the sun's forces on the needle shows affinity, it does not show the actual reason why the needle moves towards the sun.

All affinitive forces and all single forces, when scattered, endeavor on all occasions to join and aggregate. This is especially noticeable in a single scattered force, and is demonstrated when two bodies, each containing a volume of the same force, apparently unaided by anything tangible, draw together and attach themselves to one another.


With the magnetic needle, the force in it is attempting to leave the needle to join and aggregate with the sun's affinitive force.


This it is unable to do because the elements composing the needle have a greater power over it than the sun's affinitive force. The needle being balanced on the fine point of a thin pillar reduces the friction caused by its swing to the minimum. Although the sun's force cannot overcome the resistance of the elements, it can and does overcome the friction.

Like the magnetic needle, an ordinary magnet has a super-volume of the same magnetic force as the needle. If, as I said, a scattered force always attempts to join and aggregate, the magnet should be enabled to affect the needle. Let us see by making the magnet a little sun. As the magnet is brought towards the needle, the needle swings and points towards the magnet.


The force in the needle is endeavoring to join the force in the magnet. If the magnet is swung to and fro, the needle follows the movement of the magnet. Take the magnet completely around the box and the needle will follow it, making a complete circle. The magnet is controlling the movements of the needle, but is incapable of drawing the force out of it.

Proctor mentions:

"The discovery that the periodical changes of the sun's appearance are associated with the periodic change in the character of the earth's magnetism..."

Proctor here has undoubtedly inadvertently used a wrong word by saying "character" of magnetism. What he undoubtedly meant was degree.

Magnetism is a force. There are various magnetic forces. The character of a force never changes, but various magnetic forces have various characteristics; some are affinitive to other forces only, while others are also affinitive to elements; so that if "character" stands, it would mean one class of magnetic forces would supplant and take the place of others.


In my mind Proctor certainly meant degree and used "character" in error, which would be quite easy to do if one allows the theme to be in any way broken in a line of thought.


The phenomenon which Proctor speaks of is that the earth's magnetism varies in degree.



"The deviation of the magnetic needle is greatest during the period of n years at the time when sun spots are most numerous and of the greatest area."

Here we have an exceedingly interesting phenomenon upon which many a theory could be advanced.


First, it would be necessary to know the positions of the sun's poles when "sun spots are most numerous and of the greatest area." As the sun oscillates her poles once in u years, and the sun spots occur during one particular period in these n years, it is self-evident that they either occur when the sun's pole is dipped towards the earth, when it is pointing away from the earth, or when it is in its mean position.

Basing a theory that "sun spots are most numerous and of the greatest area" when the sun's pole is dipped towards the earth, many phenomena are apparently accounted for.

The sun's polar regions like the earth's are super-magnetized; when the pole is dipped towards the earth, it would bring a greater surface of the sun's super-magnetized area exposed to the earth. Consequently a greater volume of super-magnetized rays and forces. This is one possibility.

The sun's double layer of clouds may be more dense around her equatorial regions than in her polar regions. In other words, they may taper in density from the equatorial regions to the poles. Then when the pole is at its extreme dip towards the earth, rifts or openings may appear in the thinner and less dense polar clouds. These rifts or openings would appear black and be what is called sun spots.


These openings would not expose the body of the sun, as suggested by Herschel, but the dark invisible parent rays which surround and envelop her body, making the body unseen to the human eye. Through such rifts or openings, we should therefore receive direct the parent rays of the sun unfiltered or undiluted. These rays would be more intense than what we ordinarily receive, consequently would have greater power to affect the magnetic needle.


Then, once in every 11 years, the magnetic needle would be subject to a greater deviation.

An interesting experiment to make, if it were possible, would be to test the rays coming from sun spots, without involving the other rays coming from the sun, and see whether rays coming from sun spots only are capable of affecting the earth's light force.


If the rays from sun spots are incapable of doing so, then we know at once that the sun's specialized clouds and atmosphere are necessary to the production of light on earth.


By a diagram I will now show how and why the magnetic needle is deflected by the sun's magnetic affinitive forces.

To obtain the force represented by A as being anchored in the compass, the weight D must break it away from its fastening. This it cannot do. It does, however, pull the line down and deflects it from a straight line to B. The deflection in the cord represents the deflection of the magnetic needle.

The variation of the magnetic needle caused by the sun's affinitive magnetic force is a convincing natural phenomenon that:

The sun has powerful magnetic forces, The earth has powerful magnetic forces; and That some of the sun's magnetic forces are affinitive to some of the earth's magnetic forces.


I have taken the solar system as an example of how all systems throughout the universe probably work.


In fact they must cither work in the same manner or very like it to avoid collisions among the celestial bodies.

The distance from the earth to the sun has been calculated to be about 91430,000 miles. The length of her annual circuit around the sun is stated to be about 609,553,000 miles. The earth is traveling in this circuit at a rate of about 1,670,000 miles per day. The earth makes her orbit around the sun in the form of an ellipse.


There is no visible connection between the earth and the sun whereby the earth is being held in given distances from the sun. This being the case, it demonstrates that unseen forces are the agents and that these forces emanate from the sun.

To accomplish this orbit by the agency of forces, more than one force is required. It is also shown that all forces are working in harmony and unison. I shall now attempt to show what the forces are, how they are generated, and how they work, - a stupendous attempt, but after over 50 years' study of the subject, I think I can accomplish it.

For the sun to carry the earth around herself in an orbit, four separate and distinct forces are required. Three of these must emanate from the sun, and One from the earth.


The four forces are:

  1. A sun's propellant force to carry the earth along in her orbit.

  2. A sun's repellent force to prevent the earth from being drawn into the sun.

  3. A sun's magnetic force to prevent the repellent force from carrying the earth out into space.

  4. An earthly magnetic force or forces that are affinitive to the sun's propellant and magnetic forces. It may involve two earthly magnetic forces or only one, I cannot say.

I have heretofore shown that all these forces exist. Two of the sun's forces, the magnetic and repellent, must form a neutral zone.


The repellent force at the sun's surface must be stronger than the magnetic force, and from the sun's surface must diminish in strength as it works out into space. The magnetic must be weaker at the sun's surface than the repellent and also diminish in strength as it moves out into space, but the rate at which its power diminishes must be much slower than that of the repellent; then, at a given point, dependent on the magnetic capacity of the planet, a neutral zone will be formed, from which she cannot stray.

Each of the planets has a different magnetic capacity. Therefore, as their magnetism differs, so must their neutral zones differ in distance from the sun. Thus it is shown why Mercury is so close to the sun and Neptune so far away as to be out of sight.

Apparently, I cannot say it authoritatively, the magnetic capacity is governed by density.


If our scientists are correct in their assertions about the densities of the planets, the planet nearest to the sun is the densest and the farthest one away the least dense of all.


This is a conventional diagram.


Distances and sizes are not considered.

  1. Curved lines radiating from the sun. The centrifugal force.

  2. Straight and wavy lines. The sun's forces, including magnetic.

  3. Black circles. The neutral zones of the planets.

  4. The planets.

I shall now show how the various forces must work.



The propellant force is achieved by the attraction and holding power, one to the other, of certain of the sun's magnetic forces and certain of the earth's magnetic forces belonging to the electro-magnetic division.


The sun's rays with their forces follow the spinning movement of the sun, like spokes in a wheel when it revolves, following the hub. The sun is the hub, and the rays with their forces are the spokes. It is also illustrated by changing the angle of a searchlight; the rays from the searchlight follow the change of angle.

The forces in the sun's rays attach themselves to the earth's affinitive forces in a manner to the various illustrations already given. The strength of this magnetic bond is sufficient to hold the earth in touch and carry her around in her orbit. Neither the earth or any of the planets travel forward as fast as the sun's rays. If they did, they would make their orbits in 16 days.

The magnetic grip, however, is not sufficient to hold either the earth or any of the planets rigid. There is what is termed in mechanical machinery a slippage. This so-called slippage is due to two facts: actual slippage and the actual breakage of connections. As the earth or a planet revolves, as the area passes on from sight of the sun, the actual contact is broken, as one surface disappears from the sun another surface comes forward in view, so that as one connection is broken another one is made.

A magnetic slippage can be demonstrated by passing a magnet around the box of a magnetic needle swiftly. The needle will follow the magnet but lose ground all the time, and eventually go out of control entirely unless another magnet follows the first. Then the forward movement of the needle will he continued, corresponding to new areas being brought forward, to be brought under the magnetic hold.

A phenomenon in connection with the magnetic needle is that the further away from the needle the magnet is, the slower will be the movements of the needle. So it is with the planets and the sun, the farther away from the sun the planet is, the slower her movements are found to be.

The momentum of the earth must also be taken into consideration, although almost infinitesimal, as she has no weight in space.

The moon and the planet Mercury are examples of pure magnetic slippage. As neither revolves on her axis and as neither travels at the rate of the forces controlling their orbits, pure slippage accounts for their tardiness. The sun's principal magnetic hold on the earth is the area of the polar regions, which are super-magnetized.


The sun has no hold whatever on a de-magnetized region.



The repellent force is the sun's centrifugal force, which is always casting off, throwing outwards and away from the place of generation; it endeavors to throw everything within its reach out into space, and to throw all of the sun's satellites off beyond her reach and control.


This, however, it cannot do because there is another force working against it.


This force tries to draw every satellite into the sun; to avoid either catastrophe, the Great Designer instituted neural zones, where the forces are equal in power, so that the repellent force cannot throw the earth and planets out into space.



The magnetic force is one of the sun's magnetic forces. I say one because the sun has ultra and intense-magnetic forces, which are affinitive to the forces of her governing sun, and which are not affinitive to earthly forces. This I have previously shown.

Whether it is the sun's magnetic force which is carrying the earth in her orbit, the magnetic force which turns the earth on her axis, or a totally different one that is antagonistic to the repellent force, I am not prepared to say.

The sun's magnetic forces undoubtedly reach beyond the outermost satellite, whatever that may be. Neptune may or may not be the last out. The recently discovered Pluto may or may not be a member of our solar system.

From the movements shown by the bodies comprising the solar system, it is self-evident that the repellent force is much stronger at the sun's surface than the magnetic force, and that as they both work out into space the repellent loses its power much faster than the magnetic.



The neutral zones of the earth and planets are shown in the diagram of the solar system, page 188 as circles parallel to the sun with a planet on each circle.


The neutral zone of a satellite is governed by her magnetic capacity. Her magnetic capacity in turn is governed by the elements composing the body, the thickness of the crust, and the general density. This is fully verified by the bodies composing the solar system.

The higher or greater the magnetic capacity of a planet is, the nearer will be her neutral zone to the sun, and the body with the lowest magnetic capacity will have its neutral zone the farthest away from the sun.

A body, when given an impetus by a temporary force, flies forward, commencing in a straight line, and continues on in this straight line until some magnetic force attracts it, and eventually stops it having overcome a temporary force. Then the magnetic force claims the body.

If, however, the propellant force is not of a temporary character, and of a circular movement, with sufficiently strong centrifugal and magnetic forces governing it, so as to form a neutral zone, then the flight must be everlasting.

As this is the condition in which the earth and planets are placed, their flights around the sun must continue on to the end of time.

As an example showing the difference between a temporary and an everlasting force, I will take a grindstone with its underside in a trough of water.

As the grindstone revolves, the water in the trough is picked up by it, carried a little distance, and then thrown off by the grindstone's centrifugal temporary force. The water, as it leaves the wheel, starts off in a straight line, but soon commences to curve towards the earth. This curve is an indication that the earth's everlasting cold magnetic force is claiming the water and is overcoming the grindstone's centrifugal force. At last the water strikes the earth.


A weakened temporary force has succumbed to a strong everlasting force.

Neither the earth or any of the planets can be carried out into space any more than the water could be carried out into space by the grindstone's centrifugal force.
The earth and planets can be carried out by the sun's centrifugal force just so far and no further. They are compelled each and all to remain in their neutral zones.


For at the distance from the sun at which they are placed, the sun's magnetic force is holding them against the sun's centrifugal force. Neither the earth or any of the planets can be drawn into the sun, for, within their neutral zones, the sun's repellent force is stronger than the magnetic, and prevents their nearer approach to the sun.

The earth and each of the planets have their own separate degrees of magnetic capacity, and all being different, no two have the same neutral zone. Therefore they cannot collide with each other.


To have two planets occupying the same neutral zone, it would be necessary to have the two bodies of identically the same size, composed of identically the same element, and in the same exact proportion one to the other, and with identically the same thickness of crust. Otherwise, their magnetic capacity would not be the same; not being the same, it is impossible for them to have the same neutral zone.

I have often been asked,

"What would be the result if a planet through some unaccountable cause strayed out of her neutral zone?"

Nothing serious could happen. I shall give a diagram showing how the forces would work in such a case and what would eventually become of her.



I have given two full erroneous circuits and a part of a third before the planet finally settles back again to her neutral zone.


As a matter of fact, she might correct her error on the first circuit or it might take many. The whole thing is merely a problem of what would happen if such an error did actually occur.

At the outer circle C the magnetic force would be so much more powerful than the repellent, that the outward progress of the planet would be checked, and she would be brought back with great impetus. This would result in her being brought within the neutral zone at about the center of her orbit. Here the repellent force would gain the ascendancy, resulting in sending her out again beyond the neutral zone, but not so far as in her first error, and so it would go on, each time reducing the ellipse until finally she settled down again in her neutral zone.

As an example, take a swinging pendulum; the impetus given at the start keeps the pendulum swinging, but each swing becomes shorter and shorter, until it finally stops.


It is then in a neutral zone between the bar on which it swings and the cold magnetic force.




The movements of the various bodies throughout the universe clearly show that the solar system is a duplication of the many other systems throughout the universe. Our sun with her satellites is moving around a superior sun.


This superior sun, with her various systems, is moving around some greater sun, and so on to the center of the universe.




  • All forces connected with the earth's circuit around the sun are even and everlasting.

  • The earth cannot stop her flight around the sun as long as the sun continues to be a living body.

  • The earth cannot be drawn into the sun.

  • The earth cannot be hurled off into space.

  • The earth cannot collide with any other body.

  • Each body in the solar system has its neutral zone.

  • Each body in the universe has its neutral zone.

  • No two neutral zones cross each other.

  • No body can be drawn out of its neutral zone.

  • The sun has a hard crust and a soft center.

  • The sun is not committing slow suicide by burning up.

  • The sun is a cool body.

  • The sun supplies no heat beyond her atmosphere.

  • A pole may be magnetized and de-magnetized many times during a circuit around the governing body.

I have very inadequately shown what the great Cosmic Forces are and their manner of working, but trust that at least some who read this work will find it sufficiently explicit to understand what I wish to convey.


Back to Contents


Back to Dramatic Changes in Our Sun