Scott makes further comments in between Dean's comments in red.
···
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:00:37 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:
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 an attraction from behind. Cater explains why this is so in chapter 12- I won't get into it now.
If you are suggesting that gravity is electromagnetic in some form or another that may be one thing. In the Churchward books, gravity was described by the ancients as the cold magnetic force. Just exactly what is implied by that description, I cannot tell. If the Earth is exerting this type of "hug" on other heavenly bodies, and as Cater's claim is that the surface of the Moon has greater gravity and effect on the Earth oceans tides, then why wouldn't the Earth choose to "hug" the gravitationally more potent Moon and make it the center of its orbit? After all if it is claimed that the Moon has a greater gravitational influence on the Earth's tides due to a greater surface gravity, then how could we be induced to orbit the Sun. Again, and at least with the level of logic that you have presented, this argument that the Earth hugs the
Sun makes no sense.
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.
If the gravitational force of the Earth is what holds our planet in our orbit of the Sun, then what reason would there be for what has been coined as Solar tides. If this is the case, why would the tides peak at all or where they do just prior to their perfect alignment with the Sun?
And how about the trajectory of solar flares? They don't obey Newtonian principles as they fall back down to the sun:
I don't buy this argument and if it is a case of observation then we should all make a study of the solar flares but as a superficial analysis of this situation there may be very good reasons why the solar flares do not respond as one expects in a typical law of falling bodies manner. We should discuss just what forces propel the flares above the surface of the Sun. Don't make the mistake of suggesting that there is so
little gravity on the Sun's surface because of what is visually seen. For one thing,
perhaps the very expanding superheated gas in a state of plasma has the effect of levitating or lifting the flares above the surface and that it settles downward in a reduced speed owing this sort of levitation to the density of gases that it is on top of.
I read somewhere that the temperature at the Sun's surface was very hot but ironically sound apparently has a medium quite a distance away from the Sun. I have read that there is enormous sound involved and that sound might have something to so with the temperature of various regions. It was stated that the temperature of areas 1,000,000 miles from the Sun's surface actually is about 1,000,000 degrees in temperature. Now it seems to me that if I am speaking prematurely by having not read Mr. Cater's book, unless he has likewise considered all of these factors he may have written the book prematurely without considering all of these conditions unique to the Sun.
Another key point should be made. It is suggested that the Keplerian laws of planetary motion while true for the solar system are not true went it comes the rotation and orbiting characteristics of spiral galaxies out in interstellar space. This is no repudiation of the Keplerian law because in my opinion the motion of stars in galactic spiral arms is different for a very specific reason. That is because the stars
that form the spiral arms themselves act as gravitational magnets which has the effect of pulling the stars further out in the spiral arms moving faster than they would under normal Keplerian orbital rules. It would be a little like the ice skating figures who form a line and no matter how fast the line is rotating, the line remains straight all the way to last skater in the line. This might be considered against the law of angular momentum but no one would suggest such a thing since they recognize the advantage of the skaters benefiting from each successive skater closer into the center of the hub. Now regardless of whether the reason why the spiral arms act unlike how Keplerian laws dictate they ought to, it is not reason enough to suggest that Kepler was wrong. He was quite obviously correct at least in our sparsely filled solar system.
" 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 elicited much discussion among us is that you all have prejudged 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 want to be sentimental believers. And tides have a lot to say about gravity.
If I end up being right about the Solar tides and why it is possible for a greater force
to be responsible for a lesser proportion of tidal effect, then, Cater's attenuation of gravity seems to be thoroughly rebuked. I can state with high confidence that the uneven behavior of tides on the far side of the planet is NOT a sign of gravity being attenuated by the mass that it passes through.
Also, why haven't you tackled the question of the activity and enormous gravitational
forces inherent in a black hole? It surely is not the attracted object that vastly increases its gravitational well that causes it to be drawn permanently within the bounds of a black holes event horizon. If the Sun does not exert anything but the weak gravitational force that you suggest, how could it then become the source of such an ultimate gravity well?
If Mr. Cater is to convince anyone of his theories it must be that all of the scientific concerns and objections have been accounted for and explained. Any other outcome means that the theory presented does not cut the mustard. I used to be quite taken with the gravitational theories of Al Snyder which first came to my attention in Rodney Cluffs World Top Secret book on the hollow earth. I found that
not only were his static equations inadequate in explaining everything in nature, but his formula didn't jive correctly with the geosynchronous orbit formula no matter how either of us (Rod and I) tried to make it work.
I also don't understand another statement that I have heard. Some have suggested that with Newtonian mass formulas, the planet earth would crush any hollow sections
beneath our feet. In other words, it would be impossible for there to have a hollow section of the Earth in the interior of the planet. I think this is a somewhat reckless thing to say. After all, no one on current record has descended further down into the crust than at most 8 or 10 miles. This is only partially through the width of the crust. How can one say with any confidence what the density of the shell structure of the Earth would be and what forces it would have to resist in maintaining a hollow core?
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.
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
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/).
` 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/).