[allplanets-hollow] Ch.3 Cater-Tides- Gravity

[Scott_A_Macklin]

The idea presented below that the Moon has more surface gravity than the Sun and that this is an inescapable fact is pure hogwash! I am sorry to be so blunt but this idea makes no sense at all. For one thing the Sun is roughly 400 times further away than the Moon and it has to exert some type of influence on the Earth to cause it to orbit the Sun. If the Mass of the Earth is stated as 5.97E+027 grams of weight, then to orbit

the Sun means that at right angles to a straight line vector of force (mass times acceleration) that the Earth would travel if all forces of gravity

from the center of its orbit disappeared, a force would have to be exerted. If one turned off the gravity from the Sun like a light switch you would be left with our planet travelling at 18.5 miles per second in a straight line which would be according to the laws of inertia. Now before the Earth had travelled any further along this course lets calculate the amount of force needed to bend the flight path or vector of motion necessary in order to once again orbit the Sun as it had been. One proof that the Sun must exert a higher surface gravity than the Moon is by calculating this force which is surely greater than the force the Moon exerts on spacecraft that have orbited the Moon.

Another proof is that according to Kepler's third law of planetary motion the period of orbit is proportional to the mean radius of the orbit

of the planet to the 3/2 power. Now if we had the ability to magically reduce the mass of the Sun, our planet would decrease velocity even

though it would be orbiting at the same radius it had been from the Sun. The only difference is that the lesser mass of the Sun would cause the

orbit to be slower. The reason for this is obvious if you consider this question a moment. Since the mass of the Earth had not changed, the mass product of force between the two bodies would lessen with the inverse square value remaining the same. Since there is less mass in this

Sun the orbital velocity of the Earth would have to decrease for the lessened mass product from the sun to bend the Earth's course in the same

orbital shape we have now. A perfect example of this is for two projectiles of equal mass to be propelled at two different velocities. In order to

bend the path of the faster projectile so that it follows a given arc, a lateral force must be applied at right angles to that line of force. Since the

slower projectile has less force ( F = ma ) even though having an equal mass, a lesser force is needed to maintain the same exact given arc that

the faster projectile is moving along.

Now the final crux of my argument is very telling. If the Moon had an equal (let alone greater surface) gravity compared to the Sun, what would we see? Moving toward the Sun makes the orbit faster according to Kepler's third law of planetary motion. If an object moves too

slowly at any orbital radius, we can expect that it will fall into the gravity well of the primary it is orbiting. Mercury is a case in point. It is very

much closer to the Sun than the Earth is and to offset the greater gravitational force of the Sun it must orbit at an average of roughly 27 miles per

second compared to the Earth's 18.5. (the Mercury figure is from memory and might be a little off).

The final nail in the coffin on the idea that the Moon has more surface gravity than the Sun is the orbital velocity of the moon spacecrafts from the center of the Moon. It takes a couple hours to have such vehicles make one trip around the Moon. This is an unequal comparison though. The Moon being so much smaller than the Sun means that we must compensate by determining the drop rate above the moon at a comparative distance above the Sun's surface. Since the radius of the Sun is 432,500 miles across, we will add a little bit and compare the two bodies gravitational performance at 500,000 miles. For the Moon, that would be twice as far away in rough terms as it is from the Earth. This gravity is a very feeble amount but to emphasis the point, if the surface gravity of the Moon was equal to that of the Sun, then an object that was 93,000,000 miles away from the Sun would have to orbit it at 18.5 miles per second. I figured out that a spacecraft orbiting the Moon surface at an altitude of 70 miles and assuming an orbital period of 2 hours (or whatever is correct) would mean that the vehicle was orbiting at roughly

a mile per second or 3600 miles per hour. If this time was wrong and it only took the spacecraft an hour to orbit the Moon, then the velocity would be 7200 miles per hour. Use the geosynchronous orbit formula and solve for the low earth orbit velocity of an object in its orbit. Have we not heard that the orbital velocity of the space shuttle is about 17,000 miles per hour. There can be no question about this. I have shown that the velocity of an orbiting satellite must be directly proportional to the gravitational force of the planet being orbited.

It is not as Mr. Cater states the apparent diameter which must be inversely squared with distance but the mass product. Mr. Cater apparently has not seen fit to consider all the facts. The centrifugal force of the Earth orbit around the Sun is by and large the reason that the

tides effected by the Sun are so much weaker than that of the Moon. The Earth being at the hub of the Moon's orbit does not have any centrifugal force working against the Moon's gravitational force to diminish the Moon's tidal effect.

I had been of a mind to buy Mr. Cater's book but if he espouses things like the Sun and the Moon having equal surface gravities based on their comparative perspective size which is suggested by the fact that the Moon perfectly eclipses the Sun, I don't believe I can justify the expense of his book.

Scott

···

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:33:02 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:

Leslee wrote:

I have just finished reading Cater's explanation for high tides, and that tides will be highest during a New Moon.  As an astrologer this makes perfect sense to me.  The Sun & Moon, when the (moon is at quarter--90 degree),  is when the tension between the two is at it's highest, it peaks a minute after an opposition 180, but their energies merge at 0 degrees.  I am guessing Cater is saying that when the Sun and Moon are working against each other so to speak, tides will be at their lowest due to less gravitational pull, because the interaction during the times of squares and oppositions is focussed more between the Sun and the Moon, and not the Earth? 

Dean Writes:

Leslee,

What specifically interests me about Cater's presentation on the tides is the idea that gravity does not have unlimited penetration through the Earth, in other terms, that gravity is not occasioned by the density of mass. Obviously, there is mass thorughout the Earth's shell and, if gravity does not penetrate, then it cannot be caused by mass.

Anyway, the idea is that if gravity were penetrating and synomamous with the existence of mass, one would be hard-pressed to establish the HET, as the shell of the Earth would have a tendency to collapse inward upon itself. Or else the cavity would hgave to be so small as to practically preclude the existence of any inner sun.

This is why I am interested in studying the nature of tides- the concept of gravity which one accepts either makes or breaks the HET. I really am interested in chatting of the cause and nature of tides and gravity. I know that Scott has some ideas, too, which we should all take a look at.

Here are some of the comments which Cater makes which are of interest:

One of the most extraordinary examples of irrationalism in the history of orthodox physics is the standard explanation of tides. In this case, the discrepancy between reality and orthodox speculation is so colossal it is one of the great enigmas in the history of human thought, that it has not been challenged since the time of Newton. The origin of the difficulty is an obvious flaw in the Newtonian concept of gravitation. It is the idea that gravity effects have unlimited penetration. In other words, there is no attenuation of gravity effects other than that due to the inverse square law as it passes through matter. This is an outrageous violation of the law of conservation of energy.

...

It is now apparent that the idea of unlimited gravity penetration is not valid. This means that the surface gravity effects of the Moon penetrate the Earth for only very limited distances. Therefore, the total acceleration that the surface gravity of the moon imparts to the Earth, as a whole, is very small compared to the acceleration force exerted on an object at the Earth’s surface, such as a body of water facing the moon. This means the water, not being fixed to the Earth, is free to move across the surface by means of the Moon’s gravitational influence. The difference in gravitational accelerations is so great that the acceleration given a body at the surface follows very closely the inverse square law, since the acceleration given the Earth as a whole can be disregarded.

...

The analysis of tides presented above forms the basis for proving that the surface gravity of the Moon is greater than that on the sun. Since the sun and the Moon have the same apparent diameters, viewed from the Earth, tidal
effects produced by them are directly proportional to their surface gravities. ... gravitational effects vary inversely as the square of the distance away. Their [ the Sun and the Moon ] apparent diameters are inversely proportional to the distance; therefore, their apparent surface areas also vary inversely as the square of the distance Since the moon is a greater factor in producing tides, the conclusion that the Moon has a greater surface gravity than the Sun is inescapable! To the orthodox mind this produces insurmountable paradoxes.

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

`

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).

[Frode]

The idea presented below that the Moon has more surface gravity than the Sun and that this is an inescapable fact is pure hogwash!

Would you be a little patient before you jump to this conclusion. I understand why you get this reaction, but you do not have the full context of why Cater says this. This is the danger of taking small segments out of a book like "The Ultimate Reality" . You can almost "prove" anything to be garbage if you take out parts and change the context.

I will try to get back to this, hopefully tomorrow. OK

Frode

[0108]

Scott Wrote:

The idea presented below that the Moon has more surface gravity than the Sun and that this is an inescapable fact is pure hogwash! I am sorry to be so blunt but this idea makes no sense at all.

Dean Writes:

Scott,

What if the gravity which holds the Earth in orbit is being generated by the Earth? It is the Earth which reaches across the distance and hugs onto the Sun. Gravity is electrical in the sense that it radiates and passes through an object, but only exercises a frontal attraction, while it does not exercise and attraction from behind. Cater explains why this is so in chapter 12- I won't get into it now.

It is easy to say that the Sun is holding the planets in orbit due to its mass, but this idea doesn't seem to hold in other circumstances. Cater disarms us of the idea that gravity is due to the density of mass by the observation that " large bodies of water are accelerated relative to the Earth to produce tides, such bodies are given different accelerations than the Earth as a whole." If gravity were due to the density of mass, its effects would be consistent at least through the upper portion of the surface of the planet.

And how about the trajectory of solar flares? They don't obey newtonian principles as they fall back down to the sun:

" The behavior of matter ejected by explosions on the Sun's surface defies all of the popular laws of gravity. This matter occasionally rises to altitudes of several hundred thousand miles. It does not follow a trajectory in descending as it is supposed to. Also, its speed of descent does not follow the law of falling bodies at any time. In fact, the velocity of fall is much lower than expected. One of the reasons is the
low surface gravity of the Sun. Another reason is the variable quantity of negative charges which impregnate these masses."

Low surface gravity of the sun could be due to low emissions of the radiation which induces gravity, in spite of the Sun's large size.

And clouds don't fall. They are comprised of heavy, massive loads of water. They float for days and weeks at a time. There is no proof that they are fluxing microscopically between droplet and vapor form, such that some expansion keeps lifting them up before they fall. In cold environments, I couldn't imagine water fluxing microscopically between water and vapor. In my kitchen the idea might work because I boil water.

Scott wrote:

For one thing the Sun is roughly 400 times further away than the Moon and it has to exert some type of influence on the Earth to cause it to orbit the Sun.

Cater:

" The analysis of tides presented above forms the basis for proving that the surface gravity of the Moon is greater than that on the sun. Since the sun and the Moon have the same apparent diameters, viewed from the Earth, tidal
effects produced by them are directly proportional to their surface gravities. ... gravitational effects vary inversely as the square of the distance away. Their [ the Sun and the Moon ] apparent diameters are inversely proportional to the distance; therefore, their apparent surface areas also vary inversely as the square of the distance Since the moon is a greater factor in producing tides, the conclusion that the Moon has a greater surface gravity than the Sun is inescapable! To the orthodox mind this produces insurmountable paradoxes."

Scott-

At this point I see that Frode has asked me to hold on and be a little patient. We will see what he says tomorrow. I think that the " context " which he mentioned might have to do with the idea of the gravity which we see at work being generated by the planetary globes themselves.

I am happy that we are finally discussing this matter to the hilt. I think that one reason why it hasn't elecited much discussion among us is that you all have pre-judged Cater without comprehending his scheme.

I also think that your presentation on tides should be scrutinized on the list, and I am not saying this to be diplomatic. If we are going to talk about a hollow configuration for our planet, then we should have a strong understanding of how gravity works and fits in, unless we just wnat to be sentimental believers. And tides have a lot to say about gravity.

So if any of you have been holding back on the thinking and analysis because of time constraints and such, now might be a good moment to jump in and get wise about this thread.

I hope we get to hear from Hagar, I mean Frode, tomorrow.

http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/hagar/about.htm

Later,

Dharma/Dean

If the Mass of the Earth is stated as 5.97E+027 grams of weight, then to orbit

the Sun means that at right angles to a straight line vector of force (mass times acceleration) that the Earth would travel if all forces of gravity

from the center of its orbit disappeared, a force would have to be exerted. If one turned off the gravity from the Sun like a light switch you would be left with our planet travelling at 18.5 miles per second in a straight line which would be according to the laws of inertia. Now before the Earth had travelled any further along this course lets calculate the amount of force needed to bend the flight path or vector of motion necessary in order to once again orbit the Sun as it had been. One proof that the Sun must exert a higher surface gravity than the Moon is by calculating this force which is surely greater than the force the Moon exerts on spacecraft that have orbited the Moon.

Another proof is that according to Kepler's third law of planetary motion the period of orbit is proportional to the mean radius of the orbit

of the planet to the 3/2 power. Now if we had the ability to magically reduce the mass of the Sun, our planet would decrease velocity even

though it would be orbiting at the same radius it had been from the Sun. The only difference is that the lesser mass of the Sun would cause the

orbit to be slower. The reason for this is obvious if you consider this question a moment. Since the mass of the Earth had not changed, the mass product of force between the two bodies would lessen with the inverse square value remaining the same. Since there is less mass in this

Sun the orbital velocity of the Earth would have to decrease for the lessened mass product from the sun to bend the Earth's course in the same

orbital shape we have now. A perfect example of this is for two projectiles of equal mass to be propelled at two different velocities. In order to

bend the path of the faster projectile so that it follows a given arc, a lateral force must be applied at right angles to that line of force. Since the

slower projectile has less force ( F = ma ) even though having an equal mass, a lesser force is needed to maintain the same exact given arc that

the faster projectile is moving along.

Now the final crux of my argument is very telling. If the Moon had an equal (let alone greater surface) gravity compared to the Sun, what would we see? Moving toward the Sun makes the orbit faster according to Kepler's third law of planetary motion. If an object moves too

slowly at any orbital radius, we can expect that it will fall into the gravity well of the primary it is orbiting. Mercury is a case in point. It is very

much closer to the Sun than the Earth is and to offset the greater gravitational force of the Sun it must orbit at an average of roughly 27 miles per

second compared to the Earth's 18.5. (the Mercury figure is from memory and might be a little off).

The final nail in the coffin on the idea that the Moon has more surface gravity than the Sun is the orbital velocity of the moon spacecrafts from the center of the Moon. It takes a couple hours to have such vehicles make one trip around the Moon. This is an unequal comparison though. The Moon being so much smaller than the Sun means that we must compensate by determining the drop rate above the moon at a comparative distance above the Sun's surface. Since the radius of the Sun is 432,500 miles across, we will add a little bit and compare the two bodies gravitational performance at 500,000 miles. For the Moon, that would be twice as far away in rough terms as it is from the Earth. This gravity is a very feeble amount but to emphasis the point, if the surface gravity of the Moon was equal to that of the Sun, then an object that was 93,000,000 miles away from the Sun would have to orbit it at 18.5 miles per second. I figured out that a spacecraft orbiting the Moon surface at an altitude of 70 miles and assuming an orbital period of 2 hours (or whatever is correct) would mean that the vehicle was orbiting at roughly

a mile per second or 3600 miles per hour. If this time was wrong and it only took the spacecraft an hour to orbit the Moon, then the velocity would be 7200 miles per hour. Use the geosynchronous orbit formula and solve for the low earth orbit velocity of an object in its orbit. Have we not heard that the orbital velocity of the space shuttle is about 17,000 miles per hour. There can be no question about this. I have shown that the velocity of an orbiting satellite must be directly proportional to the gravitational force of the planet being orbited.

It is not as Mr. Cater states the apparent diameter which must be inversely squared with distance but the mass product. Mr. Cater apparently has not seen fit to consider all the facts. The centrifugal force of the Earth orbit around the Sun is by and large the reason that the

tides effected by the Sun are so much weaker than that of the Moon. The Earth being at the hub of the Moon's orbit does not have any centrifugal force working against the Moon's gravitational force to diminish the Moon's tidal effect.

I had been of a mind to buy Mr. Cater's book but if he espouses things like the Sun and the Moon having equal surface gravities based on their comparative perspective size which is suggested by the fact that the Moon perfectly eclipses the Sun, I don't believe I can justify the expense of his book.

Scott

Leslee wrote:

  I have just finished reading Cater's explanation for high tides, and that tides will be highest during a New Moon.  As an astrologer this makes perfect sense to me.  The Sun & Moon, when the (moon is at quarter--90 degree),  is when the tension between the two is at it's highest, it peaks a minute after an opposition 180, but their energies merge at 0 degrees.  I am guessing Cater is saying that when the Sun and Moon are working against each other so to speak, tides will be at their lowest due to less gravitational pull, because the interaction during the times of squares and oppositions is focussed more between the Sun and the Moon, and not the Earth? 

Dean Writes:

Leslee,

  What specifically interests me about Cater's presentation on the tides is the idea that gravity does not have unlimited penetration through the Earth, in other terms, that gravity is not occasioned by the density of mass. Obviously, there is mass thorughout the Earth's shell and, if gravity does not penetrate, then it cannot be caused by mass.

  Anyway, the idea is that if gravity were penetrating and synomamous with the existence of mass, one would be hard-pressed to establish the HET, as the shell of the Earth would have a tendency to collapse inward upon itself. Or else the cavity would hgave to be so small as to practically preclude the existence of any inner sun.

  This is why I am interested in studying the nature of tides- the concept of gravity which one accepts either makes or breaks the HET. I really am interested in chatting of the cause and nature of tides and gravity. I know that Scott has some ideas, too, which we should all take a look at.

  Here are some of the comments which Cater makes which are of interest:

  One of the most extraordinary examples of irrationalism in the history of orthodox physics is the standard explanation of tides. In this case, the discrepancy between reality and orthodox speculation is so colossal it is one of the great enigmas in the history of human thought, that it has not been challenged since the time of Newton. The origin of the difficulty is an obvious flaw in the Newtonian concept of gravitation. It is the idea that gravity effects have unlimited penetration. In other words, there is no attenuation of gravity effects other than that due to the inverse square law as it passes through matter. This is an outrageous violation of the law of conservation of energy.

...

  It is now apparent that the idea of unlimited gravity penetration is not valid. This means that the surface gravity effects of the Moon penetrate the Earth for only very limited distances. Therefore, the total acceleration that the surface gravity of the moon imparts to the Earth, as a whole, is very small compared to the acceleration force exerted on an object at the Earth’s surface, such as a body of water facing the moon. This means the water, not being fixed to the Earth, is free to move across the surface by means of the Moon’s gravitational influence. The difference in gravitational accelerations is so great that the acceleration given a body at the surface follows very closely the inverse square law, since the acceleration given the Earth as a whole can be disregarded.

...

  The analysis of tides presented above forms the basis for proving that the surface gravity of the Moon is greater than that on the sun. Since the sun and the Moon have the same apparent diameters, viewed from the Earth, tidal
  effects produced by them are directly proportional to their surface gravities. ... gravitational effects vary inversely as the square of the distance away. Their [ the Sun and the Moon ] apparent diameters are inversely proportional to the distance; therefore, their apparent surface areas also vary inversely as the square of the distance Since the moon is a greater factor in producing tides, the conclusion that the Moon has a greater surface gravity than the Sun is inescapable! To the orthodox mind this produces insurmountable paradoxes.

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

`

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).

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

`

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).

···

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:33:02 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:

[Frode]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Ch.3 Cater-Tides-
Gravity

What if the gravity which
holds the Earth in orbit is being generated by the Earth? It is the
Earth which reaches across the distance and hugs onto the Sun. Gravity
is electrical in the sense that it radiates and passes through an
object, but only exercises a frontal attraction, while it does not
exercise and attraction from behind. Cater explains why this is so in
chapter 12- I won't get into it now.

Dean!!!

I don't like surprises, or should I say shocks, like this!

Good night,

Frode

[0108]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Ch.3 Cater-Tides- Gravity
Frode,

isn't it like this?

Doesn't the sun have little surface gravity, the planets exerting more?

I hope you slept well.

Dean

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Frode

To: [email protected]

Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 2:26 AM

Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Ch.3 Cater-Tides- Gravity

  What if the gravity which holds the Earth in orbit is being generated by the Earth? It is the Earth which reaches across the distance and hugs onto the Sun. Gravity is electrical in the sense that it radiates and passes through an object, but only exercises a frontal attraction, while it does not exercise and attraction from behind. Cater explains why this is so in chapter 12- I won't get into it now.

Dean!!!

I don't like surprises, or should I say shocks, like this!

Good night,

Frode

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

`

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).

[0108]

Members,

The following is from Mike Mott's book. It looks as if the satellite might
have grabbed a photo of the opening, and that it isbetween N. Canada and
Siberia.

DD

[0108]

This is from the Hidden Neighbors section of Mike Mott's book:

" Similarly the sorcerer Merlin, himself said to be the half-human result of
the union of an underworld being and a mortal woman, covered Uther Pendragon
with the likeness of his enemy Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall, so that he might
impregnate his rival's wife Ygraine and produce the child which would become
Arthur, the mythical king of Britain. Uther wanted pleasure; Merlin had an
agenda of his own. It's meaningful that Merlin's father was said to have
been an incubus, or a demon/underworld entity capable of having intercourse
with human women and impregnating them. Merlin had to bring together the
desired genetic partners, and this seems to have been simply underworld
manipulation of human history and politics as usual, as far as subterranean
interference in human affairs go."

This theme of manipulation of the surfce world is not something new, thank
you Mike Mott. 400,000 children disappear from North America each year. Even
counting runaway and kids double-counted, this means that every three years
or so a population a little over 300 million loses a million kids. In all of
the Vietnam War, the USA only lost ( only? ) 60,000 soldiers. So the amount
missing is incredible.

The Bhagavad Gita was spoken to Arjuna on a battlefield. The ensuing battle,
which Arjuna had tried to aviod, is said by the Hindus to have wiped out the
administrative/military population of the planet, ( at least of the
surface ). It was certainly manipulated by underworld beings, if not from
the inner shell of this planet, then from what are described in the Vedic
literature as the lower planetary systems. Here is a discription of
Duryodhana's manipulation, he was the enemy of Arjuna and Arjuna's brothers,
jointly known as the Pandavas:

Here is an account from the Mahabharat about the aduction of Durydhana:

" Although sexual attraction seems to play a role in both modern and Vedic
abduction stories, there may also be other motivating factors. The abduction
of King Duryodhana in the Mahabharata is an example in which the underlying
motives involved politics and military strategy.

King Duryodhana once had an encounter with some Gandharvas, who had cordoned
off an area around a lake for recreational purposes and had blocked
Duryodhana's army from entering. When Duryodhana tried to enter anyway, a
fierce battle took place, and he was captured by the Gandharva forces. At
this point, Arjuna, who was staying nearby, used his political connections
with the Ganharvas to free Duryodhana. Arjuna and his brothers had been
driven into exile by Duryodhana, but Arjuna intervened to save him from the
Ganharvas on the grounds that he was a relative and a human being.

Duryodhana was humiliated by being saved by a person he had scorned and
mistreated as an enemy, and he decided to give up everything and fast unto
death. However, it seems that some other parties had long-standing plans for
Duryodhana, and they weren't at all pleased by this turn of events:
' Thereupon the Daityas and Danavas, hearing of his decision, the gruesome
denizens of the nether world who had been defeated by the gods, now, in the
knowledge that Duryodhana would wreak their party, performed a sacrificial
rite in order to summon him.'

With mantras, the Danavas summoned a ' wonderous woman with a gaping mouth,'
and asked her to fetch Duryodhana. This woman was a Kritya, a type of
demoniac being, and she was able to transport the king by mystical travel:
' Kritya gave her promise and went forth and in a twinkling of the eye went
to King Duryodhana. She took the king and entered the nether world and a
little while afterward handed him over to the Danavas.'

[ Moderator's Note: By being referred to as residents of the " nether
world," Sadaputa Dasa, the narrator, is not referring to the hollow portion
of the Earth but rather, planetary systems below the Earth or possibly
worlds in the inner shell. ]

The " Nether World " is not exactly the region beneath the surface of the
Earth. According to the Vedic literature, there are three regions known as
Svarga, or heaven. These are delineated in relation to the ecliptic, or the
orbital path of the Sun against the background of fixed stars. There is
Divya-svarga, (divine heaven ), the region of the heavens to the north of
the ecliptic. Bhauma-svarga ( earthly heaven ), in roughly the plane of the
ecliptic;and Bila-svarga ( subterranean heaven ), to the south of the
ecliptic. The Bhauma-svarga is sometimes referred to as Bhu-mandala, and it
is the " flat Earth " mentioned previously ( see pages 215 - 216 ).

... The nether regions can also be entered by taking the Pitr-Jana path,
which is said in the Vishnu Purana to begin near the constellations Scorpio
and Sagittarius and extend to the South in the direction of the star Agastya
or Canopus. This is described in more detail in Chapter 7 ( page 281 of
Alien ID ).

Once Duryodhana was in the presence of the Danavas, they explained to him
that his presence on Earth was arranged in advance as part of their plan.
His great bodily strength and his near immunity to weapons were arranged by
their manipulations. He therefore shouldn't spoil everything by taking his
life. Danavas and Daityas, taking birth as Earthly heroes, would assist him
in his battle with the Pandavas. The Danavas also pointed out that they
would use mind control to make sure that this battle would have the desired
outcome:

' The other Asuras will take possession of Bhishma, Drona, Kripa and the
others; and possessed by them they will fight your enemies ruthlessly. When
they engage in battle, best of the Kurus, they will give no quarter to
either sons or brothers, parents or relatives, students or kinsmen, the
young or the old. Pitiless, possessed by the Danavas, their inner souls
overwhelmed, they will battle their relations and cast all love far off.
Gleefully, their minds darkened, the tiger-like men, befuddled with
ignorance by a fate set by the Ordainer, will say to one another that - '
you will not escape from me with your life! ' Standing firm in their manly
might in the unleashing of manifold weapons, best of the Kurus, they will
boastfully perpetrate a holocost.'

If this wasn't enough, the Danavas also explained that the hero Karna and
the " sworn Warriors " ( a band of demons ) would slay Arjuna. After
convincing Duryodhana that he would be victorious, the Danavas arranged for
his return:

' The same Kritya brought the strong armed man back when he was dismissed,
to the very spot where he had been fasting unto death. Kritya put the hero
down, saluted him, and when the king had dismised her, vanished then and
there.

After she was gone, King Duryodhana thought that it had all been a dream,
Bharata, and he was left with this thought: I shall vanquish the Pandus in
battle.'
This story from the Mahabharat has a number of features that are seen in UFO
abduction accounts. These include:

1. A strange being takes Duryodhana bodily to another location, where he has
a meeting with other stange beings.
2. Mystical or higher-dimensional transport is used.
3. The strange beings have human form, but look " gruesome." Certainly they
are " aliens."
4. These beings have been guiding Duryodhana's life from the very beginning.
5. They designed his body so that he would be impervious to weapons. Thus
they apparently engaged in genetic manipulations, or something similar.
6. The aliens were planning to manipulate human beings through mind control.
7. After his interview, Duryodhana returned to the spot where he was taken,
and after settling him down, his captor disappeared.
After the experience, it seemed to be a dream.
There are accounts in the UFO literature which parallel the story of
Duryodhana."

Memmbers: Don't let this type of info just slide by. Get wise and inform
yourselves.

Dharma/Dean

[0108]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Ch.3 Cater-Tides- Gravity
Members,

I have included a couple of pages from Chapter One of Cater's book in support of the idea that the Moon has an atmosphere. Easy reading, enthralling.

Scott-

If we don't abandone Newton, how can we accomodate an atmosphere on the Moon? !/6 of the Earth's gravity doesn't cut it.

I'm still considering your theory. I'll have a comment or two tonight, I imagine. I have to follow it, first.

Dharma/Dean

[0108]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Ch.3 Cater-Tides- Gravity

···

Dean!!!

I don't like surprises, or should I say shocks, like this!

Good night,

Frode

To: Frode

From: Dean

Hey! What kind of a viking are you, then?!!?!

;^ )

[0108]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Ch.3 Cater-Tides- Gravity

Here is something from Jan Lamprecht on the matte of Newtonian gravity:

Another astronomer wrote a paper in the 1960's where he pointed out that gravity might actually not be valid at galactic distances. For example it has been found that the outer sections of the long arms of spiral galaxies actually move faster than the inner sections. This means that spiral galaxies violate Newtonian gravity.

[0108]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Ch.3 Cater-Tides- Gravity
The poll is easy to respond to. It just takes a minute: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/allplanets-hollow/polls

DD

[Frode]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Good Night/Good
Morning

Frode,
isn't it
like this?
Doesn't the
sun have little surface gravity, the planets exerting
more?

Yes! But you should know by now that the surface gravity is not
the same "gravity" that is responsible for the Sun's
ability to hold on to the planets in our solar system. And it is
certainly not the surface gravity of the Earth that hook onto
the Sun.

Frode

···

I hope you
slept well.
Dean

[Jan_J_M]

Very nice. I thought about posting this incident from Mahabharata myself.
Thanx, Dharmaji.

Jan

[Jan_J_M]

The following is from Mike Mott's book. It looks as if the satellite might
have grabbed a photo of the opening, and that it isbetween N. Canada and
Siberia.

No photo is attached...

Jan