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

[Scott_A_Macklin]

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

You bring up some nice and realistic points. I don't personally buy

into the idea of dark matter either, but I have tended to believe in black holes.

I am more flexible about this point than you might think. When you stated

below that black holes have never been observed directly, that is a bit unfair.

It is not that I have a problem with your reasons for questioning them, but it

is more of a procedural thing. For instance, when asked the question, will

man ever develop the technology to enable him to see atoms, the answer at

least from a visual magnification standpoint would have to remain forever NO!

The reason this is so is that they have calculated that the wavelength of visible

light is such that it is too wide to capture the dimension and scale of an atom.

By this reckoning we will never be able to view in the ordinary optical sense

things that are that small. Now it may be that one might find a way to alter the

spectrum or translate it into something different that could be displayed visually.

I cannot say for sure.

This example does illustrate how your statement about viewing the mythic

"black hole" is not a fair test. In a slightly different way, viewing a black hole

cannot be done in the same way that one sees things and tests for their existence

in the normal scientific, observable sense. By its very definition a black hole

would be impossible to see. All matter that spins inward and beyond the event

horizon of a black hole disappears from sight forever. Even light cannot escape

this phenomena once it has entered beyond a given point, so it is neither possible

or fair to determine that black holes exist by "seeing" them in a telescope. Such

circumstances call for the flexibility of extrapolation. In other words, if all light

enters a sphere shaped region never to escape again, then one can hypothesize that

this is a black hole and be fairly safe in doing so.

I have mused quite a bit about the nature of these objects should they exist,

but you asked me for reasons to reconsider that they might exist. I cannot say with

any conviction that I will convince you otherwise because the strength of my argument

comes from extrapolation and dependence on Newtonian physics which everyone is

all too happy to question. Based on Newtonian thought, I do have a reason to speculate

that these kind of objects are possible.

Let us divert for a moment and consider the formula for mass which is

M = r^2 * g / G. Lets hypothetically take our own planet Earth and suggest that its

mass remained the same but that we cancelled out the need of the r^2 component in

the numerator by assigning it the value of 1 centimeter squared which is nothing more

than the identity multiplier in algebra. This represents the entire compressed mass of

the Earth to only two centimeters in diameter. We have the same mass but it is contracted

to a phenomenal degree. M = g / G. Since G, the gravitational constant is a constant,

and M remains unchanged, we only have to assign the value to g that is equal to the K

value in the original formula which is r^2 * g. K in the mass equation for the earth is

equal to 63730024 ^2 * 980.665 or 3.982986e+020. This number then becomes

equivalent to the surface acceleration of the condensed planet Earth which is only 2

centimeters in diameter ( 1 centimeter radius squared ). Now what I do is to divide this

number by 2 which is equal to the amount of distance travelled in the first second

according to the drop rate over time formula of 1/2rateseconds^2. This number is

just slightly smaller than 1.99e+020. This represents the drop rate or the distanced travel

at the surface of the 2 diameter planet body at the end of the first second. Of course this

is a technique that mimics the drop rate of actual falling bodies which are on the surface

of the Earth in reality. My point though is to carry out the Newtonian formulas to their

logical conclusion. If these laws hold true then someone elses laws have to be nullified

or the Newtonian formula for mass itself. In other words, Newton and Einstien are

mutually exclusive. The only out for Enstein is to time dilate the acceleration but I don't

care to get into that at this time. Otherwise, they both can't be right because I did further

calculations that showed me that radius from the center of the 2 centimeter diameter

compressed Earth that equals the drop rate of the speed of light is roughly 7 kilometers.

This proves one of two things. If the Newtonian formulas are correct for all mass

bodies regardless of size mass and density, then we have essentially through extrapolation

proven that the speed of light can be exceeded if enough force is applied. Perhaps this

might be a hyper gravity drive which has been the rumor of guys like Robert Lazar working

on supposed alien craft from distant star constellations at area51. On the other hand we

can assume that Newton was wrong and that gravity and mass are not associated according

to the formulas which are the common place tools of scientists today.

The idea that I will convince you of something like black holes is perhaps the wrong

question as we have seen that the proof of such things must be arrived at through means

that are independent of the typical scientific method, be it extrapolation or whatever. I

guess my point about the compressed Earth is that it is possible to contemplate by prediction

the existence of black holes by extrapolating Newtonian mass equations to the nth degree .

This is all the right I have to convince you that black holes might be a possibility and because

of it, perhaps we should all be less emphatic in what we claim is or isn't the truth.

Scott

···

On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:02:16 +0100 Frode [email protected] writes:

Scott,

Before we go on with Cater and tides let us take a look at black holes.

I have suggested earlier that black holes does not exist in reality. They have not been observed directly, only assumed to be observed indirectly. I have also claimed that there are better explanations for this observations.

The text below is taken from: http://www.holoscience.com

For more than 10 years plasma physicists have had an electrical model of galaxies. It works with real-world physics. The model is able to successfully account for the observed shapes and dynamics of galaxies without recourse to invisible dark matter and central black holes. It explains simply the powerful electric jets seen issuing along the spin axis from the cores of active galaxies. Recent results from mapping the magnetic field of a spiral galaxy confirm the electric model.

On the other hand, cosmologists cannot explain why spiral shapes are so common and they have only ad-hoc explanations for galactic magnetic fields. More recently, inter-galactic magnetic fields have been discovered which is the final straw to break the camel's back. Incredible gravitational models involving invisible "black holes" have had to be invented in a desperate attempt to explain how the attractive force of gravity can result in matter being ejected in a narrow jet at relativistic speeds.

Why do we accept such science fiction as fact when an Electric Universe predicts spiral shapes, magnetic fields and jets? The cosmic magnetic fields simply delineate the electric currents that create, move and light the galaxies.

---

What do you think? Can you give me some good reasons to why I should reconsider black holes as real. I have more info on plasma interactions vs the existence of black holes if you are interested. But I will not use time on that if you are not genuinely interested in reconsidering your view on black holes. I want a win/win exchange or no exchange at all. I have a lot to learn, and as long as our exchange provide me and you with a wider understanding of reality then it is of value for us both.

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/).

[Frode]

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

So you will agree with me that Black Holes
are connected to the assumption that the Newtonian idea of gravity is
right, and that this gravity bend light?

Cater claims that the surface gravity of an
object increases as the mass of that object increases, but then only
to a certain point. So if the mass increase beyond this point the
surface gravity will not increase significantly. He also claim that
gravity does not bend or retard light that pass or travel away from
the source of gravity.

If Cater is right then we can't have black
holes, right?

You say that if the Sun has less surface
gravity then the Earth or Moon then the Sun will not be able to hold
the planets in orbit. And I agree with you that this seems obvious,
but according to Cater, it is not the measured surface gravity on the
Sun that keeps the planets in orbit. And neither is it only the
measured surface gravity of the Earth that keeps the Moon in
orbit.

So what is it?

You now should know that Cater claim that
gravity is due to a certain frequency below infrared and above
radar.

You also know that the hotter a body of
matter is the higher peak frequencies are emitted from that body
(black-body radiation).

Because of the extreme heat on the Sun most
of its energy is radiated in the form of high energy photons above
visual light. I am not sure where the peak frequency is though. The
interesting thing is that the black body radiation curve will show us
that the Sun will actually emit less radiation in the region below IR
then the Earth and the Moon. So if the surface gravity is due to the
radiation produced by a body in this frequency range below IR
radiation then it stand to reason that the Sun has less surface
gravity then the Earth and the Moon.

But still, what is keeping the planets in
orbit then?

And here is where it gets a little
complicated. In modern physics they have something that they call the
Compton effect, that is getting close to explaining what happens to
the light of the Sun as it pass through space and later into a planet
like Earth.

Do you get the picture and does it stick
together so fare?

The point is not to try to prove anything
yet, only to take a look at Cater's theory of gravity and see if it is
logically sound.

Time to get some sleep I guess. It's early
morning her in Norway.

Frode

PS! I am waiting for a book written by Pari
Spolter called " Gravitational Force of the
Sun". It deals with the flaws that Newton
did by including mass into the formula of gravity. It also rip apart
the alleged proves of Einstein's general theory of relativity. I have
some of the details now but I want to get the book
first.

[0108]

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

PART FOUR: IN THE UNDER WORLD We learned that the males do not marry before they are from seventy-five to one hundred years old, and that the age at which women enter wedlock is only a little less, and that both men and women frequently live to be from six to eight hundred years old, and in some instances much older.

During the following year we visited many villages and towns, prominent among them being the cities of Nigi, Delfi, Hectea, and my father was called upon no less than a half-dozen times to go over the maps which had been made from the rough sketches he had originally given of the divisions of land and water on the "outside" surface of the earth. I remember hearing my father remark that the giant race of people in the land of "The Smoky God" had almost as accurate an idea of the geography of the "outside" surface of the earth as had the average college professor in Stockholm. In our travels we came to a forest of gigantic trees, near the city of Delfi. Had the Bible said there were trees towering over three hundred feet in height, and more than thirty feet in diameter, growing in the Garden of Eden, the Ingersolls, the Tom Paines and Voltaires would doubtless have pronounced the statement a myth. Yet this is the description of California sequoia gigantea; but these California giants pale into insignificance when compared with the forest Goliaths found in the "within" continent, where abound mighty trees from eight hundred to one thousand feed in height, and from one hundred to one hundred and twenty feet in diameter; countless in numbers and forming forests extending hundreds of miles back from the sea.

Members,

I guess that the extended duration of life, and size, is due to the soft particle environment.

DD

[0108]

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

···

Frode wrote:

Cater claims that the surface gravity of an object increases as the mass of that object increases, but then only to a certain point. So if the mass increase beyond this point the surface gravity will not increase significantly. He also claim that gravity does not bend or retard light that pass or travel away from the source of gravity.

If Cater is right then we can't have black holes, right?

You say that if the Sun has less surface gravity then the Earth or Moon then the Sun will not be able to hold the planets in orbit. And I agree with you that this seems obvious, but according to Cater, it is not the measured surface gravity on the Sun that keeps the planets in orbit. And neither is it only the measured surface gravity of the Earth that keeps the Moon in orbit.

So what is it?

You now should know that Cater claim that gravity is due to a certain frequency below infrared and above radar.

You also know that the hotter a body of matter is the higher peak frequencies are emitted from that body (black-body radiation).

Because of the extreme heat on the Sun most of its energy is radiated in the form of high energy photons above visual light. I am not sure where the peak frequency is though. The interesting thing is that the black body radiation curve will show us that the Sun will actually emit less radiation in the region below IR then the Earth and the Moon. So if the surface gravity is due to the radiation produced by a body in this frequency range below IR radiation then it stand to reason that the Sun has less surface gravity then the Earth and the Moon.

But still, what is keeping the planets in orbit then?

And here is where it gets a little complicated. In modern physics they have something that they call the Compton effect, that is getting close to explaining what happens to the light of the Sun as it pass through space and later into a planet like Earth.

Dean Writes:

Frode and Scott,

This is what I've been saying, and I've described this phenomena many times in the past- the redistribution of frequency, which takes place mostly within the Earth's crust.

Recently I wrote a description and said that the Earth generates this frequency through the gravity-inducing radiation below its crust and in this way " latches " onto the sun. The radiation which initiates all this originates in the Sun, but the redistribution/lowering of the frequency takes place within the Earth's shell, so I imagine that I can express the process in this way. I've stated that the Sun has low surface gravity but that the gravity which holds the planets in place is generated within the planets. There is still a connection with the Sun because the initial radiation stretches across the solar system.

The book Etidorhpa, which Cater says inspired him, talks in this way. The Guide refers to " Earth-bred " light, for example. Well, it originated from the sun, but through the process of the formation of the relatively huge soft particles formed of photon aggragates, the capture of hard particles, and the break up of the more unstable soft particles, light and heat are " bred " within the Earth.

In this way, the solar disk has little gravity because it doesn't generate much of that particular frequency which does induce gravity on our planet. But when the radiations of the Sun arrive here, they change and bring about that frequency.

I think that one problem has been that I have presented the process continually, always with bits and pieces, or maybe a whole, long part of it. But then somebody reads some part piecemeal that doesn't jive with what they know, and then they brush the whole process aside, and when the next such post comes along, they say in the back of their minds " Oh, that stuff again." Hopefully, some buts and pieces are falling into place now, and maybe the idea as a whole is starting to dawn on some list members.

A year ago exactly I was very disappointed because I had read enough Arctic and astronomical HE stuff that I was convinced of the hollow configuration of our planet. But I couldn't explain the geological physics of hollow planets. I had put my faith in the explanations of others who couldn't do it either because they stayed within the parameters of conventional science. Then I ran into Frode- Frode already had the concepts down pat, and he worked with me for a while to explain it all to me. The fine points have come little by little. But I think that if a person had some previous concepts, it is hard to get into Cater because some things on the surface deter you if you don't take it in as a whole all at once. And then there is the small problems of me and my layman's terms.

I think that I always felt that if one thing make sense, then it would be enough to go on, and people would actually get his book or look into it more. Well, maybe it is beginning to happen. " Every endeavour is covered by fault just as fire is covered by smoke." ( Shree Krishna )

Frode wrote:

PS! I am waiting for a book written by Pari Spolter called " Gravitational Force of the Sun ". It deals with the flaws that Newton did by including mass into the formula of gravity. It also rip apart the alleged proves of Einstein's general theory of relativity. I have some of the details now but I want to get the book first.

Dean Writes: This lady's book seems like the kind of support material that we need in order to cement or understanding.

Later,

Dharma/Dean

[Frode]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Earth
bred

Dean wrote:

Recently I wrote
a description and said that the Earth generates this
frequency through the gravity-inducing radiation below its
crust and in this way " latches " onto the sun. The
radiation which initiates all this originates in the Sun, but the
redistribution/lowering of the frequency takes place within the
Earth's shell, so I imagine that I can express the process in this
way. I've stated that the Sun has low surface gravity but that
the gravity which holds the planets in place is generated within the
planets. There is still a connection with the Sun because the initial
radiation stretches across the solar system.

Dean,

My laughter has finally settled, and I just want to say
that I think you complicate the picture a little. Or maybe turn it a
upside down. I think that it is better to say that the Sun
"latches" on to the Earth. I will take some time later to
describe this process with my own words.

Frode

[0108]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Earth bred

···

Dean,

My laughter has finally settled, and I just want to say that I think you complicate the picture a little. Or maybe turn it a upside down. I think that it is better to say that the Sun "latches" on to the Earth. I will take some time later to describe this process with my own words.

Frode

To: Frode

From: Dean

We can say it your way, but the gravity generation process goes on within each and every planet on an individual basis. I don't think that it is a transformation which takes place, it is a " redistribution "- New radiation is generated within the planet's shell.

On the other hand, all planets look towards the Sun, the sun is the ultimate origin. I think it's more in keeping with the way that most people think to speak of the Sun as the one which latches on.

I appreciate so much having a mentor around. A big # : ^ ) to you, too!

[0108]

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Earth bred
Members,

The understanding of the how the redistribution of frequency process goes on is paramount to understanding how soft particles penetrate the Earth's shell and go on to create the " Earth-bred " light, and how they reach the frequency which induces gravity effects. But the redistribution process involves ether. Understanding the nature of ether is therefore important, too.

Mr. Cater points out that the Michelson-Morely experiments only proved that ether has no measurable attraction for matter, at least not that we have perceived up until now. Previously it was thought that ether would form some type of ocean that the Earth " ploughs " through. I will put Mr. Cater's comments in THIS regard at the very bottom of this posting.

However, we now have enough background to look at Cater's section on ether from Chapter Eight:

" A principle that makes possible the understanding and unification of a wide range of phenomena has been known for thousands or years. It is one of the hermetic axioms that is a part of esoteric teachings. It is usually stated “as above, so below.” This boils down to the idea that the same basic principles inderlie all phenomena and that all things interrelate in some way, From this come the laws of cause and effect. It follows that much of the nature of causes can be deduced from effects, or that many of the properties of the unseen can be determined from that which is seen.

...

Since the axiom suggests that the nature of the ethers can he deduced by certain aspects of our surroundings, the most logical one to consider is the property of a perfect gas. Although there must be significant differences between a gas and the ethers, there must be certain properties that they have in common. An object can travel through free space at a steady velocity and encounter no measurable resistance. Yet, it apparently does encounter resistance during an acceleration. A similar pattern occurs during passage through a gas or atmosphere, but to a more pronounced degree. When inertia isn't a major factor, a hollow object, for example, will experience great resistance from the gas if there is great and sudden change in the velocity. After it attains a given velocity, and this velocity remains constant, the resistance is greatly reduced. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the inertia exhibited by a material object [ in free space ] is due to the presence of a subtle medium that possesses some of the properties of a perfect gas. If there were no medium present, it would be somewhat difficult, if not impossible, to account for inertial properties.

The analogy of, and similarity between, the behavior of a near massless hollow ball in a gas and that of a body of great mass in free space is an application of this all-important Hermetic axiom. As will become increasingly evident, further application of this line of thought leads to extremely fruitful results. It has been established that at the same temperature and pressure, all gases have the same number of molecules per unit volume. This means the average distance between molecules from center is the same for all gases, regardless of their molecular weight. Since they exert the same pressure, it follows that the average kinetic energy of the molecules is the same for each gas. This means the average velocity of a gas molecule varies inversely as the square root of its molecular weight."

Members-

Here are cater's comments from Chapte Eight:

" Before the advent of Einstein and the theory of relativity, the trans­verse wave theory of light was universally accepted. Waves cannot exist without a medium to transmit them, or in other words, a medium which vibrates in some manner. Therefore, physicists postulated the existence of a subtle medium which permeates all space. They called it the ether. It follows that if light is a result of transverse waves transmitted through an ether, then, since the earth travels through this ether in its path about the sun, an ether drift should be detected. It's a situation analogous to sound waves being transmitted through a stationary atmosphere and an ob­server moving through or relative to this atmosphere. His motion relative to the atmosphere would result in a wind, or atmosphere drift, according to his observations. Similarly, the Earth's motion through the ether should produce na ether wind. Fxperiments were devised to detect this ether wind, or drift, and its velocity. They are known as the Michelson-­Morely experiments. A light ray was split in two parts, each traveled different but identical length paths, and then they recombined. The apparatus was mounted on a platform that could be rotated in any direction. It was correctly reasoned that if light were transmitted in the as­sumed manner, then at the point the rays were recombined, interference fringes should be observed. Negative results were always obtained, to the consternation and amazement of the physicists.

Some explained away such results by assuming the earth carried some of the ether along with it. If. such were the case, it would certainly account for the negative results of the experiments. It was accepted by some of the famous physicists ot the day but was rejected by the majority, ­though no sound arguments against it were proposed. Evidently, they failed to realise that the idea was contradictory. They were all aware of the fact that a body can travel through free space at a constant velocity and encounter no resistance. This means matter has no measurable attraction or affinity for this hypothetical ether. Light couldn't be transmitted through this medium in the manner assumed, without interactions taking place within the ether. It follows that no part of the ether can be dis­placed from the rest of it without encountering resistance. Therefore, the Earth could not carry ether along with it, and not experience the same kind of resistance. This would deaccelerate the Earth, and bring it to a stop. Likewise, no material body could travel through free space without requiring a steady application of force to counteract this resistance. Consequently, the orbiting of planets and other bodies would be an impossibility. Evidently, none of the scientists involved recognized this serious flaw in the above idea. One might have expected more from such a collection of dlstinguished intellects. It is not surprising in view of subsequent mental lapses concerning the interpretation of the experiment

The Michelson-Morely experiments actually proved that the assumption that light is propagated as transverse waves through an all-pervading medium is not valid. He could, therefore, have concluded the transverse wave concept is not necessary to account for the difraction and interference effects of light. The physicists [ of the day ] were unable to reject the transverse wave concept. Therefore, the only way out or the dilemma created by the results of the Michelson-Morely experiments was the absurd conclusion that the observed velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the source or that of the observer. In other words, that the velocity of light is a universal constant. This idea, of course, violates the principle of relative velocities encountered in all our experiences. This is clearly a case of doublethink. "

I don't know how I ended up with dark letters at the bottom, but I'm not going to fool with it.

Cater's book are available through Health Research: http://www.healthresearchbooks.com/Authors/joseph_cater.htm

Dharma/Dean