I've heart Thornhill and Talbot on Art Bell and Laura Lee a few times.
They'd be great to have on board with us, the hollow earth theorists. Talbot
is basically into mythologies and ancient history as they relate to
catastrophies and Velikovsky. Thornhill is the brains behind the Electric
Universe. Here's a bit of text from his website regarding planets and
gravity:
"Earth-like planets and moons are similarly "born" by electrical expulsion
of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gas giants. That
explains the dichotomy between the dense rocky planets and moons and the
gaseous giant planets. In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is
simply an electrostatic dipolar force. So planetary orbits are stabilized
against gravitational chaos by exchange of electric charge through their
plasma tails (Venus is still doing so strongly, judging by its "cometary"
magnetotail, and it has the most circular orbit of any planet) and
consequent modification of the gravity of each body. Planets will quickly
assume orbits that ensure the least electrical interaction. Impacts between
large bodies are avoided and capture rendered more probable by exchange of
electric charge between them. Capture of our Moon becomes the only option,
it cannot have been created from the Earth. Evidence of past planetary
instabilities is written large on the surfaces of all solid bodies in the
solar system. That evidence is in the form of electric arc cratering."
To get the whole story you need to order the Electric Universe CD. Sounds
like real interesting stuff. I'm curious if they'd warm up to the hollow
earth theory.
Blake
···
-----Original Message-----
From: dean [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 4:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [allplanets-hollow] Gravity as electrostatic force
Blake,
I have never heard of Wal Thornhill, but I've seen the concept of gravity as
an electrostatic force on a couple of pages out there.
Very interesting link.I would say that Cater's theories are somewhat different but there are many similarities. Cater's explanation for gravity is not related to plasma but photon and soft particle radiation. I feel that the Electric Universe theory definitely is on the right track but there is something missing. And that is, in my opinion, soft particle physics. Dean It would be interesting to know if Cater know this work, and if he does, get a comment from him on the role of plasma in the universe. He doesn't really go into that subject at all in his book. But if one use his description of how the weather works on earth and use it as an model for the universal "weather", then it would in a sense be the same.
The problem with Cater is that he is not online and I feel that this is
connected to his age.
I want to give him a quick call in about a week, and I'll bring up the topic
of plasmas.
Dean
···
Thanks!
Very interesting link.I would say that Cater's theories are somewhat
different but there are many similarities. Cater's explanation for
gravity is not related to plasma but photon and soft particle
radiation. I feel that the Electric Universe theory definitely is on
the right track but there is something missing. And that is, in my
opinion, soft particle physics. Dean It would be interesting to know
if Cater know this work, and if he does, get a comment from him on
the role of plasma in the universe. He doesn't really go into that
subject at all in his book. But if one use his description of how
the weather works on earth and use it as an model for the universal
"weather", then it would in a sense be the same.
Yes, quite close to Cater. He doesn't seem to take the hollow portion into consideration as a cause for the magnetic field. He mentions the " rotation of the charged Earth around its axis." Does he mention a charged atmosphere rotating against a a charged surface? I wonder. I will look into it.
For a dynamo effect to occur, does the rotation have to take place between opposite charges? That is the idea, right?
Dean
···
No one after reading the evidence and the arguments in this book can avoid the conclusion that all the forces of nature including gravity, magnetism
and the weak and strong nuclear forces are derived from a single force, the electrostatic force.
The cause of the Earth's
magnetic field is in the magnetic field of the Sun, and the rotation of the charged
Earth around its axis."
` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected]
Frode,
Yes, quite
close to Cater. He doesn't seem to take the hollow portion into
consideration as a cause for the magnetic field.
I don't think Cater does that either. Does Cater claim somewhere
that the planet need to be hollow to have an magnetic field?
He mentions
the " rotation of
the charged Earth around its axis." Does he mention a charged
atmosphere rotating against a a charged surface? I wonder. I will look
into it.
No he doesn't. I think you make this more complicated then what
it really is Dean. Maybe I have missed something, but I don't think
so. Will check it out later.
For a dynamo effect to
occur, does the rotation have to take place between opposite charges?
That is the idea, right?
You don't need opposite charges to make an magnetic field, you
just need a moving charge. The Earth has an overall positive charge,
and the movement of that charge is all that is required to make the
magnetic field. At least in theory.
Frode
···
Dean
No one after reading the evidence and the arguments in
this book can avoid the conclusion that all the forces of nature
including gravity, magnetism
and the weak and strong nuclear forces are derived from a single
force, the electrostatic force.
The cause of the
Earth's
magnetic field is in the magnetic field of the Sun, and the rotation
of the charged
Earth around its axis."
`To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Yes, quite close to Cater. He doesn't seem to take the hollow portion into consideration as a cause for the magnetic field.
I don't think Cater does that either. Does Cater claim somewhere that the planet need to be hollow to have an magnetic field?
Frode,
No, Cater doesn't. But he does say that just as the magnetic field can be developed by a different rotational rate between the surface charge and the charged atmosphere, he says that this also ocurrs in the hollow sphere, all around. He said it in a phone conversation.
Frode,
No, Cater doesn't. But he
does say that just as the magnetic field can be developed by a
different rotational rate between the surface charge and the charged
atmosphere, he says that this also ocurrs in the hollow sphere, all
around. He said it in a phone conversation.
Dean
Ok, I have looked at it. I was wrong when I said that the overall
positive charge of Earth is the cause of the magnetic field of Earth.
It is mainly the hard electrons released by the soft particles that
housed them. Cater does not say anything about different
rotational speed between the surface and the atmosphere in his book,
and I can't see why that should be a major point. You also use the
expression " dynamo effect" which make no sense at all in
this context. A dynamo use magnetic fields to produce electricity, not
magnetic fields. Cater use the solenoid as an analogy and not a dynamo
in his book. A solenoid is an electromagnet.
Ok, I have looked at it. I was wrong when I said that the overall positive charge of Earth is the cause of the magnetic field of Earth. It is mainly the hard electrons released by the soft particles that housed them. Cater does not say anything about different rotational speed between the surface and the atmosphere in his book, and I can't see why that should be a major point.
Dean Writes:
Frode-
Page 259, 3rd paragraph:
" Geomagnetism was explained in a previous chapter as the result of charges in the atmosphere moving with the Earth in its rotation. In addition, the shell of the Earth should act then as a bar magnet. "
Page 140: GEOMAGNETISM
A great wealth of evidence supports the conclusion that geomagnetism is produced by the earth's rotation. The intensity of the field is dependent on the concentration of negative charges in the atmosphere and the crust, and also the rotational velocity. As the earth rotates, it carries the charges along with it. This is equivalent to a myriad of electrical currents, all moving in the same direction. This effect is identical to that of a great solenoid. Interestingly enough, the polarity of the earth's field corresponds to that of a solenoid with a current flowing in the direction of the earth's rotation. The charges in the atmosphere and crust are predominately soft electrons. Soft electrons, without the specialized shape of hard electrons, have no preferred direction of spin. However, hard electrons are continually being released by the soft particles and, especially, at the magnetic poles where the giant egresses into the earth's interior are located. The hard electrons set the pattern of spin for all the other particles. Thus, the left-hand rule is followed by all the particles moving with the earth's rotation.
Physicists have always assumed a magnetic field is apparent only when a charge is moving relative to an observer. This is very bad reasoning. It actually violates the laws of electromagnetic induction. It is a well known fact that a conductor that moves perpendicular to the magnetic lines produced by a permanent magnet or a solenoid will have an EMF induced in it. The EMF is directly proportional to the velocity. "
When Cater says: " The intensity of the field is dependent on the concentration of negative charges in the atmosphere and the crust, " then isn't he talking about a different rotational speed between the surface and the atmosphere?
You are right about the part below. My goof. ( I admit to them! )
Bye now,
Dean
You also use the expression " dynamo effect" which make no sense at all in this context. A dynamo use magnetic fields to produce electricity, not magnetic fields. Cater use the solenoid as an analogy and not a dynamo in his book. A solenoid is an electromagnet.
When Cater says: "
The intensity of the field is dependent on the concentration of
negative charges in the atmosphere and the crust, " then isn't he
talking about a different rotational speed between the surface
and the atmosphere?
Dean,
I have never heard that the
atmosphere have a different rotational speed related to the surface,
it would be interesting to know more about that. But regardless of
that, it is of no importance to the production of magnetic fields by
the moving negative charge. Above he refers to the atmosphere and the
crust as one. He gives no indication of different rotational speed
between the two.
I stand corrected! I read it over again, and Cater is definitely saying that the crust and atmosphere move in unison. He says: " As the earth rotates, it carries the charges along with it."
I think that I just got it mixed up.
Dean
When Cater says: " The intensity of the field is dependent on the concentration of negative charges in the atmosphere and the crust, " then isn't he talking about a different rotational speed between the surface and the atmosphere?
Dean,
I have never heard that the atmosphere have a different rotational speed related to the surface, it would be interesting to know more about that. But regardless of that, it is of no importance to the production of magnetic fields by the moving negative charge. Above he refers to the atmosphere and the crust as one. He gives no indication of different rotational speed between the two.
Now that we have established what Cater's comments are in relation to the formation of the magnetic filed, what I ultimately wanted to get at was this:
That if the electrostatic charge which generates the magnetic field of a planet is predominently of low frequency and not perceivable, then the magnetic field thus generated may also not be perceivable. This is what Cater told me about Mars, that they can't perceive its magnetic field because it has been generated by low frequency electrostatic charge.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Low Frequency Magnetic
fileds
Frode,
Now that we
have established what Cater's comments are in relation to the
formation of the magnetic filed, what I ultimately wanted to get at
was this:
That if the
electrostatic charge which generates the magnetic field of a
planet is predominently of low frequency and not
perceivable, then the magnetic field thus generated may also not
be perceivable. This is what Cater told me about Mars, that they
can't perceive its magnetic field because it has been generated by low
frequency electrostatic charge.
Agreed?
Dean
Dean,
I understand what you mean, and I agree. But! And this is very
important but. To get a clear picture of this it is important that you
keep the different concept separated and not mix them together. Above
you mix the concept "low frequency" with "magnetic
fields" and " electrostatic charge". The concept
"low frequency" is connected to photons, and not to soft
electrons, electrostatic charge and magnetic fields. Soft electrons
are created by low frequency photons that is again created out of
lower ether. The soft electrons themselves are not arranged in a
uniform frequency.The term electrostatic charge is directly connected
to the ether. And in this case it is the lower ether that interact
with the soft particles that are made up of low frequency photons.
When a soft electron is moving, the electrostatic charge, which are
made up of the lower ether, is turned into a magnetic field made up of
the lower ether. This magnetic field is not detected because it
doesn't interact with "hard" matter. If you have
difficulties to keep this concepts in its proper arrangement I suggest
that you make a drawing of the different stages and then connect the
different concepts to the stage where it belongs. This would
make it easier to visualize. This is not easy Dean, but it will
give you a tremendous advantage if you clean up your thinking. Not
only when it comes to Soft particle physics but in all eras of life.
With this kind of thinking you will be in power and not your
surroundings.
I whish you only the best.
Frode
PS! I suddenly realized that if Mars have only a weak magnetic
field it would explain the "why" of the enormous dust storms
that some times cover most of the planet. The magnetic field is
regulating the wether into six bands on Earth, but on Mars you would
not have the magnetic fields to divide the weather system into zones
as you have here on Earth.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Magnetic fields
List Members,
I was looking at a film clip of Neptune last night. The planet has just slight traces of a ring. They are called ring arcs, and are unconnected. It is obvious from the standpoint of soft particle/low frequency particle physics, that the rings are composed mostly of soft particles and, therefore, appear to be unconnected. Had we the instruments to perceive, we would see a solid ring around the planet.
The ring around Saturn is obviously composed of particles also, but in the visible band.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Low Frequency Magnetic fileds
PS! I suddenly realized that if Mars have only a weak magnetic field it would explain the "why" of the enormous dust storms that some times cover most of the planet. The magnetic field is regulating the wether into six bands on Earth, but on Mars you would not have the magnetic fields to divide the weather system into zones as you have here on Earth.
Frode,
But if Mars has enough gravity charge to hold down that substantial atmosphere, and if it rotates so fast, then a substantial magnetic field should be generated.
Of course, Rod thinks that the inner sun is rotating at the same speed as the planet and that, for that reason, a substantial field isn't generated. Let's think about this.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Low Frequency Magnetic
fields,
Frode,
But if Mars
has enough gravity charge to hold down that substantial atmosphere,
and if it rotates so fast, then a substantial magnetic field
should be generated.
Of course,
Rod thinks that the inner sun is rotating at the same speed as the
planet and that, for that reason, a substantial field isn't
generated. Let's think about this.
Dean
It that would be the case I would like to know how the rotation
of the inner sun could create the magnetic field. BTW, isn't he
present in this e-group?
Frode
Here is something from Cater on this matter:
Another of the alleged
findings of NASA that is open to question is the claim that the
magnetic field of Mars is about the same as that of the Moon.
Mars has a relatively high rotational velocity and, therefore, should
have a strong field. There are two possible reasons for this
discrepancy. First, it is likely a recent attempt to discredit the
geomagnetic theory of planetary rotation which is in direct conflict
with orthodox concepts and is gaining favor, or the weather conditions
on Mars are such that the negative ion content in the atmosphere is
often very low. It has been found that in many areas of persistent
winds, the negative ion count is very low. The measurable field of a
planet is dependent on the concentration of hard electrons in the
atmosphere. The most likely explanation as shown later on is that the
Martian atmosphere is permeated with very high concentrations of
stable soft electrons. The magnetic fields they create would not
register on a standard magnetometer. The integrity of NASA of
officialdom has consistently proven to be much less than
impeccable.
I just spoke with Mr. Cater. He confirmed that a magnetic field, produced primarily by low frequency particles would not be perceived by magnetometers. He said that magnetometers only pick up magnetic fields produced by particles in the gamma ray band. This means that Mars could have such a magnetic field, produced that way.
He feels that Mars doesn't have much of a polar opening because the shell is so thin, that the radiations from within are able to escape back out through the shell. He feels that the Moon is the same way. This would explain the lack of aurora on Mars, as Rod informed me.
Let's continue to develop this theme, I think that maybe we are all having some new food for thought thrown at us by Mr. Cater.
That guy was tack sharp on the phone. Quick mind. I think the last time I woke him up from a nap.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Low Frequency Magnetic fields,
Frode wrote:
···
It that would be the case I would like to know how the rotation of the inner sun could create the magnetic field. BTW, isn't he present in this e-group?
Dean Writes:
Yes, Rod's around, I believe. I'll leave it to him to make any comments about his ideas on the Martian magnetic field. I like a lot of the steps that Rod has taken; for example, he also feels that the inner Sun's rays are comprised mainly of low frequency particles- Cater calls them photons, Rod calls them gyroscopic particles. This is quite a departure and bold step away from conventional explanations.
But I like Cater's explanation below for the seeming lack of a magnetic field around Mars: The most likely explanation as shown later on is that the Martian atmosphere is permeated with very high concentrations of stable soft electrons. The magnetic fields they create would not register on a standard magnetometer.
Another of the alleged findings of NASA that is open to question is the claim that the magnetic field of Mars is about the same as that of the Moon. Mars has a relatively high rotational velocity and, therefore, should have a strong field. There are two possible reasons for this discrepancy. First, it is likely a recent attempt to discredit the geomagnetic theory of planetary rotation which is in direct conflict with orthodox concepts and is gaining favor, or the weather conditions on Mars are such that the negative ion content in the atmosphere is often very low. It has been found that in many areas of persistent winds, the negative ion count is very low. The measurable field of a planet is dependent on the concentration of hard electrons in the atmosphere. The most likely explanation as shown later on is that the Martian atmosphere is permeated with very high concentrations of stable soft electrons. The magnetic fields they create would not register on a standard magnetometer. The integrity of NASA of officialdom has consistently proven to be much less than impeccable.
` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected]
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Low Frequency Magnetic fileds
···
Frode Wrote:
Dean,
I understand what you mean, and I agree. But! And this is very important but. To get a clear picture of this it is important that you keep the different concept separated and not mix them together. Above you mix the concept "low frequency" with "magnetic fields" and " electrostatic charge". The concept "low frequency" is connected to photons, and not to soft electrons, electrostatic charge and magnetic fields.
Dean Writes:
Ok, I see where, in my mind, I am mixing up the idea of soft and low frequency particles. Cater is not saying that that the magnetic field of Mars is generated by the low frequency particle and that, therefore, the magnetic field of Mars is a low frequency magnetic field. He is saying that the magnetic field of Mars is generated by soft particles, and that this resultant magnetic field is not perceptible to magnetometers.
So there is not a stock-in-trade term for such a magnetic field, one just has to describe that it is generated by soft particles and therefore not picked up on a standard magnetometer, or something like that.
I am definitely going to go over my definitions and terms. Not only am I going to go over the Mars article, but I am going to go through the whole site to make sure that I have the terms straight.
Speaking of Mars, I repeat that I stand corrected: Mars has no aurora. There have been lights seen shing through the N. polar area of Mars, but the idea is that these lights are from the inner sun. Here are some classic quotes in this regard: From the book The Hollow Earth:
“ Gardner quotes the famous astronomer, Professor
Lowell, that he has seen gleams of light from the polar
cap of Mars. According to Gardner, this is due to the light of the central sun of Mars passing through the polar opening. Similar bright lights have been observed coming from the polar region of Venus. During a transit of Mercury across the sun, the planet, while black on the side toward us, was observed to emit a bright light, comparable to the light of our sun, coming from its black disc.
Gardner concludes that these three planets are all hollow and have large polar openings ... [ which ] are white due to the large amounts of fog and clouds in these regions, and that openings in the fog or clouds permit the central sun to shine through [ at times ]. Such bright lights have repeatedly been observed by astronomers who, not understanding the reason, could not offer any satisfactory explanation. Gardner notes that, at times, these polar caps disappear suddenly, due to a change in weather, AND THAT ICE AND SNOW COULD NOT MELT SO RAPIDLY. ( My emphasis )
...
In support of his claim concerning the existence of lights seen at the pole of Mars Gardner quoted Professor Lowell who notes that on June 7, 1894, he was watching Mars and suddenly saw two points of light flash out from the middle of the polar cap. They were dazzling bright. The lights shone for a few minutes and then disappeared. Green, some years earlier, in 1846, also saw two spots of light at the pole of Mars.
[ End of classic quotes ]
The fact that lights are ONLY sometimes seen emanating from the polar regions of Mars can easily be explained if the light from the inner sun is comprised of soft particles as they " constitute the invisible and penetrating portion of light". ( Page 62, The Awesome Life Force ) Light from any inner sun would have to be constituted by soft, invisible particles as they are the only particles which can penetrate the whole width of the shell and make their way into the inner cavity to comprise the inner sun in the first place.
The light of the inner sun does not have to make its way throught the polar openings to feed and fuel the inner sun.
The pictes which I have on my site of the polar depressions suggest that there is no opening per se. This would also negate any aurora. But there seems to be a groove at the bottom of the Martian depression, so that could be a type of opening, and could account for light shining out.
Remember that Cater says that the majority of particles which build up within the inner cavity of Mars escape through the shell because it is so thin.
Well, like I mentioned yesterday, we have a little more food for thought.
