about Pari

[Scott_A_Macklin]

Dean,

        You keep rejecting Newton and that is your
privilege to do. It is not that I find total definition
in Newton but you keep being excited about a theory
of gravity that has no equations or formulas in it
whatsoever (from everything I have been told).
        As to the effects of inert matter, what causes
space dust and small asteroids and comets to orbit
the Sun. Surely this space dust is INERT, is it not?
I believe that you are under a slight misconception.
Simply because something is considered to be "inert",
doesn't mean that there might not be some form of
electromagnetic flux of field radiation to the atoms
themselves. Can scientists get a reading on the strong
and weak nuclear forces in atoms? These are declared
to be extremely powerful forces at work, most likely
in perfect balance, and because of this, they are not
either available to tap energy from or be detected by
our scientific instruments. Gravity to my knowledge
is not yet so well understood that we can generate it
at will. If that were so, we could create artificial gravity
just like we now can produce artificial diamonds. To
suggest that our current level of technological understanding
is complete enough to deem some atoms "inert" is
... premature.
        You see Dean, for me science is a sort of payoff.
When a theory or formula of science is acceptable to be
regarded as truth, as you seem to be on the verge of doing
for Mr. Cater, it SHOULD represent not only a theory
that is logical to the intellect but within itself provide the
tools that will prove its legitimacy. How can a theory be
considered as legitimate science if you cannot measure
something accurately with it? That is the scientific method.
I would switch tracks in a heartbeat if someone introduced
me to a formula that could be considered part and parcel
of something SCIENTIFIC! Despite some annoyances in
the Newtonian gravity theory, it still is the best game in town.
You stated yourself that Mr. Cater had some math when
dealing with the tides but not really much for raw gravity
itself. (words to that effect)
        Some of the problems with Newton stem I believe
from errors in the assumptions that preceded the application
of his formulas. The moon is a great example. They applied
Newtons formulas to the moon and equal-gravisphere between
it and the Earth and arrived at an answer that was woefully
wrong. Is this a nail in the Newton casket? I hesitate to
say it is due to other science that preceded it. They first
conceived of the mass ratio between the Earth and the Moon
using the barrycenter. This was discovered by two astronomers
and it led to the 1 part in 82.3 mass ratio of Moon to Earth.
A couple years ago I quizzed the guys at the AOL student
help service about it. They insisted that if the moon was
moved further away from the Earth, the barrycenter would
move to the surface. They reason that it is likened to a ratio
of weight on a scale and that using the laws of a fulcrum point
(mass times distance) one can know where the barrycenter
would be at. I find their logic totally wrong! Due in part to
this fallacious comparison between leverage and gravitational
inverse square laws, I find their whole basis for the moon mass
to be suspect. ( If you consider leverage, it is distance times
weight. So at ever greater distances, leverage increases. Gravity
on the other hand decreases with distance. Not only by
the ratio of distance but by it's inverse squaring. That is why
I discount the attempt to disprove Newton with Moon examples.
There is a certain logic to practically everything in science today,
but if the underlying logic is not a sound foundation itself, any
principles constructed on the upper part of the pyramid of
knowledge ought to share the same shaky footing.
        I like to measure things! I marvel at how you can
regard a theory of gravity with such esteem which provides
no ruler of measurement. If Newton's formulas are fit for
the trash bin, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth
because I have invested a lot of imagination and concerted
effort at solving problems with the hollow earth theory,
gravity or whatever by applying the tools we have at hand
to achieve what can be regarded as scientifically based
explanations for our world and our theories.
        You state that you have given up "equating gravitational
force with the quantity of inert matter". I have come probably
closer than any previous hollow earther in trying to DETAIL
just what does cause the plumbobs to diverge. In using
Newton's "stuff", I have erased some of the mystery which
is doing more than just theorizing. Hard data and scientific
procedure is not easy to argue against and discount. Anyone
can merely suppose this or suppose that and pat oneself on
the back about how clever one is. That isn't good enough.

        I came off sort of critical of the Dean and Matthew
Taylor book "The Land of No Horizon". They have come
up with some wonderfully insightful logical theories as to
what happened to cause the Earth to become hollow. I
give them high praise for their efforts to advance our theory.
It is a daunting task they undertook to account for the
formation of the Earth. Unfortunately, what I find missing in
their ideas and in their book is a scientific proof that supports
their theory. It is easy for establishment science to nay say
our hollow planet theory when one presents weak science
theory. They are able, if inclined, to cut ones theory to ribbons.
It pains me that they did not include some attempt to
scientifically and mathematically prove their theory tenable.
I was able, using the establishments scientific techniques to
disprove their ideas. I was playing the devils advocate more
than I would otherwise have wanted to, but that at least
covers the bases. If we can promote a theory WITH sufficient
scientific proof that we are right, it may have a chance of standing
up to rigorous scrutiny. Not doing so just leaves us prone to
being labeled starry eyed dreamers and kooks. I wish to
avoid that.
        The only other proof that could be had is to go to the
inner world personally. Take video camera evidence and then
if possible return. The video evidence would overshadow the
mere theories that there is NULL gravity on the interior of any
spherical shell structure. It would then mean that there was
a flaw in the science that predicts such a thing, and, you would
send the establishment into a panic with nothing to stand in their
defense. These theories of null-gravity are also not quite on the
mark for the Earth. There is the action of a central sun to
consider and that alone make for an inexact comparison.

No offense meant to you Dean. I happen to think that
her (Pari's) response left a lot to be desired. A sufficient
answer would have been to instruct me as to why I am
wrong about something I suggest.

Scott

···

On Wed, 16 May 2001 23:25:49 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" <[email protected]> writes:

Scott,

She didn't address every example and thought, but she gave a good
answer: "
I have rejected equating gravitational force with the
quantity of inert matter." Actually, she could have said something
about the
plum bob experiment but, hey, it was a start.

I think that I may write her on a different tack- I may ask what
kind
of opposition she came across, and what kind of allies she developed.
The
practical side, and the human side, too.

I am playing cat-up after a virus attack. Don'topen anything that
says
222000bobdas.

later,

Dean

>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

[0108]

List Members,

I just sent off a post about Central American ape men. Although it was
interesting, it was a mistake. It was intended for Fantasticrealities. It is
actually off toipic here, so for that I do apologize although, like I say,
it is interesting stuff.

Dharma/Dean

[0108]

Below is the addendum from Chapter 15 of Mr. Cater's book, The Ultimate
Reality: http://www.healthresearchbooks.com/Authors/joseph_cater.htm , as
well as some comments fromMike Mott's book on the former canopy.

Twice here Cater mentions how a high negative ion content in the atmopheres
of Mars and the Moon would distribute their density to higher altitudes. If
the gravity on those orbs were being generated within the crust by a
negatively charged electromagnetic radiation, then a negative charge in the
atmosphere would have a repulsive effect and tend to lift up the density, so
to speak.

This would also distribute the warmth vertically and reconcile extreme
temperatures. The higher altitudes wouldn't be so cold and the lower ones
wouldn't be so hot. Imagine a warm Kashmir or Tibet. In the classical Hindu
literature, these areas are described as having, in previous times,
agreeable climes and as being places where the demigods sported, in spite of
their altitudes.

According to Cater's soft particle scheme, sunlight doesn't arrive at our
atmosphere as we experience it. Soft particles break up and release the hard
particles captured within, the ones responsible for heat and warmth. Greater
densities at higher altitudes of other planets means that the soft particles
break up earlier, heating the atmosphere more, and higher up. This would
explain a formerly agreeable climate at higher altitudes, e.g., Kashmir, and
vegetation high up along Olympus Mons, even though it is so high.

Mike Mott talks about a canopy of clouds as existing in previous times which
ameliorated the effects of the sun's rays. In other words, a cloud canopy,
as Venus currently enjoys, would have also helped to have broken up the soft
particles higher up in the atmosphere and contribute to the warming.

Here is the chapter 15 addendum:

A recent and very excellent book by Danicl Ross titled, UFOs and The
Complete Evidence From Space confirms what has been shown in this treatise
concerning conditions on Venus, our Moon and Mars. It seems Ross had access
to close-up pictures of these bodies taken by NASA, which were never made
available to the American public. He obtained them outside the United
States. Some are clearly duplicated in his book. One of them shows
vegetation extending nearly to the top of Olympus Mons, thereby indicating a
tremendously dense and extensive atmosphere on Mars. The same picture showed
a cloud high above the summit. A close-up photo taken on the other side of
the Moon displays large bodies of water and even forests in the higher
latitudes. This book also gives unmistakable evidence of earth-like
conditions on Venus. Ross has stated that Adamski was informed by space
visitors the Moon had an atmospheric pressure of 6 p.s.i. This differs
slightly from the findings of the dowser mentioned earlier. However, dowsing
is not always 100 percent accurate, and even the best dowsers sometimes
stumble a bit. The 6 p.s.i. seems more realistic and still indicates a very
high negative ion content in the Moon's atmosphere. This means more
healthful conditions exist on the Moon than on the Earth. The author has
heard Ross lecture and despite the fact he is very knowledgeable and an
intelligent and dedicated researcher, it is evident he is still too young
for the full magnitude of " Sciencegate " to have dawned on him. His book is
gaining great favor and it is hoped it becomes an international bestseller,
it deserves to be.

Evidence shows that information damaging to establishment science and old
dogmas is withheld from the American public far more than from people in
other countries, as is proven from Ross' experience. This is only part of
the evidence. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Canadian newspapers published
accounts of Astronaut's conversations with their superiors on the Earth that
were suppressed in the United States. Also back in the 50s, the author saw a
photo of the Moon taken by our 200?inch telescope, showing a large man-made
structure. It had been sent to an associate of the author by a friend in
Germany! Such a picture has never been released in this country.

Evidence shows that the Moon does not experince the extremes of temperature
one would expect from the long days and nights. This can be readily
accounted for because of two factors, the extremely high concentration of
soft electrons in the atmosphere and their degree of stability. The
particles that accumulate in the atmosphere arc the more stable ones. This
means fewer disintegrations which release hard electrons and also a tendency
to absorb excess hard electrons that are released. This blanket, along with
the dense atmosphere, tends to minimize the escape of heat from the surface
during the long nights. A similar process prevents temperature extremes on
Mars. Mars undoubtedly has a relatively thin shell like the Moon since it
does not seem to have large openings into the hollow interior. The resulting
high negative ion content would prevent gravity from compressing the
atmosphere to the extent the Earth does its atmosphere. Consequently, air
density would not drop off with increase in elevation as rapidly it does on
the Earth. As a result, ideal temperatures and atmospheric densities would
exist at extreme elevations, as is shown on Olympus Mons at about 75,000
feet. Similar conditions would exist on the Moon.

Here are Mike Mott's comments on the canopy from Caverns, Cauldrons and
Concealed Creatures:

In his highly-confabulated accounts of subterranean dwellers and their
predations upon the surface world, the pulp writer Richard Shaver insisted
that such beings had taken refuge beneath the Earth's surface as a result of
a change in the sun, or in its effect upon the genetic structure of living
tissue. We now know that prolonged exposure to direct sunlight and other
types of radiation do in fact degrade our cells, and in fact may be the
primary cause of aging. The Sumerian and Hebrew accounts of a flood seem to
indicate that the atmosphere surrounding the Earth was once very different
than at present, with an ever-present "canopy" or "firmament" which may have
kept the majority of such radiation away from life on the planet. In fact,
the Book of Genesis indicates that the "first rainbow" occurred after the
downpour of the deluge (perhaps when the cloud canopy fell, due to some form
of catastrophism), when the sun shone brightly upon the Earth. If this
occurred upon a day which was, in actuality, the first day in millions of
years without a hazy shroud of water vapor or even suspended ice crystals
filling the upper atmosphere, then this may not be as much of a myth as many
might wish to believe.

···

To: List Members,
From: Dharma/Dean

[0108]

Dean,

        You keep rejecting Newton and that is your
privilege to do. It is not that I find total definition
in Newton but you keep being excited about a theory
of gravity that has no equations or formulas in it
whatsoever (from everything I have been told).

Scott,

Would the formulas be any different? I mean, you observe the attraction
between two bodies and measure it. You develop a formula which depicts the
behavior. That's it, as far as the observed behavior goes. But what do you
ascribe it to? The exterior behavior of one body upon another is the same.
Describe it by math. Fine. But then why do you say that if the cause were
total charge on the mass, not the mass per se, that there has to be some
other equation?

The problem arisesin the case of how gravity would behave in a place where
we cannot perceive it, deep beneath the ground. The gravity-inducing
radiation is generated within the crust, but according to Cater's
redistribution of frequency scheme, the deeper one penetrates, the more
different the frequency of radiation generated in that strata. So the
gravity only a surface phenomenon. But if you are standing back looking at
the exterior effect of one body upon another, without knowing what is going
on within the crust, then you can only write an equation which depicts the
exterior results.

        As to the effects of inert matter, what causes
space dust and small asteroids and comets to orbit
the Sun. Surely this space dust is INERT, is it not?
I believe that you are under a slight misconception.
Simply because something is considered to be "inert",
doesn't mean that there might not be some form of
electromagnetic flux of field radiation to the atoms
themselves. Can scientists get a reading on the strong
and weak nuclear forces in atoms? These are declared
to be extremely powerful forces at work, most likely
in perfect balance, and because of this, they are not
either available to tap energy from or be detected by
our scientific instruments.

This is one of cater's points, that theseforces are not in balance, that
there isa slight positivecharge to matter, such that thegravity-inducing
radiation, which is negatively charged, so to speak, attracts the positively
charged matter.

Cater makes some basic points in that regard:

Mr Cater relates that he was " gratified to learn that a former Nobel-prize
winner, Gabriel Lippmann, confirmed this principle in the late ninteenth
century. Lippman found that bodies in the charged state offered a greater
resistance to acceleration than in the uncharged state. He called it ' The
inertia of static electricity'. It is not surprising that this monumental
discovery was ignored since it threatened to topple cherished physical
concepts. Ironically, Lippmann later received the Nobel Prize for another
comparatively insignificant discovery.

He explains in the first part of Chapter 12: " A proper understanding starts
with the realisation that matter, i.e., molecules and atoms, naturally
possesses a positive charge. Stripping and adding electrons to an atom will
adjust its properties of inertia. The larger atoms have less inertia than
any of the fundamental particles which help comprise the atom. So inertia is
not proportional to mass- otherwise the atom, which is larger than the
electron, would have to exhibit the greater inertia.

A proper understanding starts with the realisation that matter, i.e.,
molecules and atoms, naturally possesses a positive charge. " Since the
electrons move at much higher velocities in the atoms than protons, and
cover much more territory, a higher percentage of their electrostatic charge
is transformed into magnetic energy. This means that the positive charge in
the atom will overbalance the negative charge, and give the atom an overall,
positive charge. This explains why electricity tends to move towards the
ground ...." ( The Awesome Life Force, Page 127 ).

Gravity to my knowledge

is not yet so well understood that we can generate it
at will. If that were so, we could create artificial gravity
just like we now can produce artificial diamonds. To
suggest that our current level of technological understanding
is complete enough to deem some atoms "inert" is
... premature.

Well, he is delineating on the charge of atoms, he explains that as the
electron speeds up, it loses electrostatic force as the magnetic force
increases, and that as the electrons slows down, the electrostatic force
increases and the magnetic force decreases. He has deduced this effect.

In this scheme, you can't just say that the particle of space dust orbiting
the sunis inert. It is possessed of a slight, positive charge, and there is
some attraction to the negative gravity-inducing radiations emitted from the
sun. That matter naturally is possessed of a slight, positive charge is
explained by cater thusly:

" Since electronsmove at much higher velocities in the atoms than protons
andcover much more territory, a higher percentage of their electrostatic
charge is transformed into magnetic energy. This means that the positive
charge in an atom will overbalavnce the negative charge, and give the atom
an overall, positive charge." ( Chapter 11, first two sentences, The
Ultimate reality )

        You see Dean, for me science is a sort of payoff.
When a theory or formula of science is acceptable to be
regarded as truth, as you seem to be on the verge of doing
for Mr. Cater, it SHOULD represent not only a theory
that is logical to the intellect but within itself provide the
tools that will prove its legitimacy. How can a theory be
considered as legitimate science if you cannot measure
something accurately with it? That is the scientific method.

You can measure the exterior effect of gravity fairly well. The question is
only what do you ascribe it to?

You can't " prove " everything. Often you have to have a theory whoich best
describes the phenomenon. By saying " best describes," I think we mean a
theory which describes in the most congruent, all-encompassing fashion.
Cater's theory of gravity being a matter of total charge on matter doesn't
leave open loose ends. When we ascribe gravity simply to mass, then we have
problems, such as the small asteriods which have enough gravity to hold
moons in their orbit. Their mass can't do it. If gravity were a matter of
mass, this observation would be impossible. But any orb a few hundred miles
in diameter would have enough room to generate enough gravity-inducing
charge to accomplish this.

It is a matter of the orb having enough initial room to generate Earth-like
gravity. After this, the gravity doesn't penetrate more than a given depth
of strata because some blocking frequency will get generated in stratas
further below, such that any orb ends up with a similar amount of gravity.

  > I would switch tracks in a heartbeat if someone introduced

me to a formula that could be considered part and parcel
of something SCIENTIFIC! Despite some annoyances in
the Newtonian gravity theory, it still is the best game in town.
You stated yourself that Mr. Cater had some math when
dealing with the tides but not really much for raw gravity
itself. (words to that effect)

It is a book on concepts. Nobody is arguing that the mass doesn't exhibit
gravity, but it is a matter of total charge, and not induced by the mass. So
you can accurately measure and calculate gravity, relating it to mass, most
of the time.

But then what about the behavior of asteroids? And clouds? The traditional
explanations ofthe water droplets fluxing between a gaseous state and a
liquid one causing the cloud as a whole to remain alfot simply begs for a
further causative explanation. Clouds are heavier than the surrounding
atmosphere, yet they float. A negative electrostatic charge on the particles
would cause a replusive effect in relation to the gravity radiation
generated within the crust and cause them to float, though. So there are
examples of mass and density which do not dance with Newton's idea that
gravity is related to the density of mass.

I think that the emotional investment ( ego ) that you have invested in the
Newtonian concept is making it difficult for you to accept gravity as an
electrostatic radiation. maybe you don't want to find out that you've been
wrong all this time. It is very difficult for a person who is attached to
his intelligence to admit that he was duped. " Un-teaching " such a person
and then teaching the real truth is twice as hard. The king has no clothes,
the worse it gets, the more inclined the king is to enmesh himself in
denial. No human being is above this, and you were a human being before you
started to sutdy science. You've got to accept reality checks. If not,
you'll just go off on a tangent. As an example of all this, I not that
you've been given plenty to go on, but you still seem to be gripped by
aversion to even reading Cater's book. But somebody who doesn't have to
backtrack can more easily take to the concepts.

I think that what I'll do is wait outside your house in the bushes one day
until you go to work. When you walk out the door, I'll jump you from behind
and stuff a copy of Cater's book down your jacket. Then, before you have
time to react, I'll run off down the street andjump in my car.

# ; ^ )

Don't get mad at me, read Cater's book. At least read it. It won't kill you.

···

        Some of the problems with Newton stem I believe
from errors in the assumptions that preceded the application
of his formulas. The moon is a great example. They applied
Newtons formulas to the moon and equal-gravisphere between
it and the Earth and arrived at an answer that was woefully
wrong. Is this a nail in the Newton casket? I hesitate to
say it is due to other science that preceded it. They first
conceived of the mass ratio between the Earth and the Moon
using the barrycenter. This was discovered by two astronomers
and it led to the 1 part in 82.3 mass ratio of Moon to Earth.
A couple years ago I quizzed the guys at the AOL student
help service about it. They insisted that if the moon was
moved further away from the Earth, the barrycenter would
move to the surface. They reason that it is likened to a ratio
of weight on a scale and that using the laws of a fulcrum point
(mass times distance) one can know where the barrycenter
would be at. I find their logic totally wrong! Due in part to
this fallacious comparison between leverage and gravitational
inverse square laws, I find their whole basis for the moon mass
to be suspect. ( If you consider leverage, it is distance times
weight. So at ever greater distances, leverage increases. Gravity
on the other hand decreases with distance. Not only by
the ratio of distance but by it's inverse squaring. That is why
I discount the attempt to disprove Newton with Moon examples.
There is a certain logic to practically everything in science today,
but if the underlying logic is not a sound foundation itself, any
principles constructed on the upper part of the pyramid of
knowledge ought to share the same shaky footing.
        I like to measure things! I marvel at how you can
regard a theory of gravity with such esteem which provides
no ruler of measurement. If Newton's formulas are fit for
the trash bin, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth
because I have invested a lot of imagination and concerted
effort at solving problems with the hollow earth theory,
gravity or whatever by applying the tools we have at hand
to achieve what can be regarded as scientifically based
explanations for our world and our theories.
        You state that you have given up "equating gravitational
force with the quantity of inert matter". I have come probably
closer than any previous hollow earther in trying to DETAIL
just what does cause the plumbobs to diverge. In using
Newton's "stuff", I have erased some of the mystery which
is doing more than just theorizing. Hard data and scientific
procedure is not easy to argue against and discount. Anyone
can merely suppose this or suppose that and pat oneself on
the back about how clever one is. That isn't good enough.

        I came off sort of critical of the Dean and Matthew
Taylor book "The Land of No Horizon". They have come
up with some wonderfully insightful logical theories as to
what happened to cause the Earth to become hollow. I
give them high praise for their efforts to advance our theory.
It is a daunting task they undertook to account for the
formation of the Earth. Unfortunately, what I find missing in
their ideas and in their book is a scientific proof that supports
their theory. It is easy for establishment science to nay say
our hollow planet theory when one presents weak science
theory. They are able, if inclined, to cut ones theory to ribbons.
It pains me that they did not include some attempt to
scientifically and mathematically prove their theory tenable.
I was able, using the establishments scientific techniques to
disprove their ideas. I was playing the devils advocate more
than I would otherwise have wanted to, but that at least
covers the bases. If we can promote a theory WITH sufficient
scientific proof that we are right, it may have a chance of standing
up to rigorous scrutiny. Not doing so just leaves us prone to
being labeled starry eyed dreamers and kooks. I wish to
avoid that.
        The only other proof that could be had is to go to the
inner world personally. Take video camera evidence and then
if possible return. The video evidence would overshadow the
mere theories that there is NULL gravity on the interior of any
spherical shell structure. It would then mean that there was
a flaw in the science that predicts such a thing, and, you would
send the establishment into a panic with nothing to stand in their
defense. These theories of null-gravity are also not quite on the
mark for the Earth. There is the action of a central sun to
consider and that alone make for an inexact comparison.

No offense meant to you Dean. I happen to think that
her (Pari's) response left a lot to be desired. A sufficient
answer would have been to instruct me as to why I am
wrong about something I suggest.

Scott

On Wed, 16 May 2001 23:25:49 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" <[email protected]> > writes:
> Scott,
>
> She didn't address every example and thought, but she gave a good
> answer: "
> I have rejected equating gravitational force with the
> quantity of inert matter." Actually, she could have said something
> about the
> plum bob experiment but, hey, it was a start.
>
> I think that I may write her on a different tack- I may ask what
> kind
> of opposition she came across, and what kind of allies she developed.
> The
> practical side, and the human side, too.
>
> I am playing cat-up after a virus attack. Don'topen anything that
> says
> 222000bobdas.
>
> later,
>
> Dean
>
>
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

[0108]

Now that we are talking about gravity related to the density of mass, I
looked up this comment from Rod M. Cluff's site, www.ourhollowearth.com Is
it just tlike this, that Newton leads us to believe that Uranus has 14 times
the mass of the Earth?

Any comments?

Mass an Density of a hollow Uranus

Assuming that the Newtonian gravitational constant is approximately correct
and that it gives a reasonable mass of earth and the planets, Uranus would
have a mass that is 14.44 times greater than earth. Since the overall
density of Uranus is 1.26 gm/cc, scientists have assumed that Uranus is a
liquid planet. However, if Uranus is hollow and has a shell thickness
perhaps 10% of its diameter, then the shell density would be 2.58 gm/cc,
which would give it a solid surface. The surface acceleration of gravity on
Uranus is 893 cm/sec^2 which is only slightly less than on earth. With an
interior sun, and surface gravity similar to earth, and with oxygen detected
in Uranus' atmosphere, the interior world of Uranus could contain an
environment compatible with life forms.

···

To: List Members

From: Dharma/Dean