Norlan wrote:
Dean,
According to Newtonian physics, the mass/gravity ratios don't work at all, so
I wholeheartedly agree that there is a major problem with these formulas.
However, the corrected versions of Kepler's Laws of the Universe, and the
formulas which are derived from these corrected theorems seem to work very
well.
Dean writes:
Norlan,
The ability of physicists to measure and predict the behavior of gravity upon other bodies can be very accurate. I think that the question is a little different than that, though. The question relates to the gravity charge within the shell and also on the inner surface.
Norlan writes:
Remember, in Etidorhpa the gravitational pull lessened as they
descended, yes, but, in The Smokey God, Olaf makes no mention of a
weightlessness or lightness of weight on the interior, only an exhilarated
state of energy. My question is, how is it that the two observations can
coexist? If both accounts are accurate, then what could be the explanation
of these factors?
Dean writes:
Yes, but it is hard to argue from Olaf's statements for the reasons you gave: there seems to be interpolations in his statements, his book was written by somebody else and Olaf passed away before he saw it, i.e., he never proofread it, etc. The book seems to be a bit " sanitized," or that it was made palatable.
Even so, Olaf didn't say that there wasn't lesser gravity, it is just that he was silent on the matter, or at least the book by him as told to Emerson was silent.
Gravity should be less on the inner surface, but how much less? Over the long run of a gradual trip over water, the difference might not have been noticed. The difference could have been attributed, in their minds, to a higher energy interior sun. I doubt that the hollow Earthers would have made it a point to complicate matters and confuse their minds even more by explaining every single phenomena.
Norlan wrote:
Unfortunately, a greater amount of gravitational pull has
to be assigned to mass if the earth is in fact hollow according to the new
Kepler physics. This approach does have a logical explanation as to why Olaf
would observe! w! hat he did, and in Etidorhpa, we are told of this point of
equilibrium between whatever forces that are at work within the crust of the
hollow earth which creates a zone of weightlessness.
Dean writes:
Yes, but gravity as an electrostatic charge also explains it, and explains other phenomena, such as why the sun doesn't influence tides much, why clouds float, etc. We don't want to explain things piecemeal.
Norlan wrote:
However, this zone
would still be somewhat deep inside the surface of the outer mantle of the
earth's outer shell. I don't understand how Cater's theory allows for a
gravitational surface attraction on the interior surface of the earth's
mantle if there is no assignment of gravity to mass at all. The only other
way that I can see Olaf's observations can be explained is if the entire
attraction he experienced is centrifugal in nature and not a result of
gravity at all. There has to be some sort of attraction if rivers exist, and
if they flow, as rivers do on the surface, to a "lower level." Olaf seemed
to indicate that rivers existed with pretty much the same attributes as those
The attraction which exists on the surface of the interior cavity is a result of the gravity charge within the crust. The charge is generated by the fundamental particles of matter interacting with subtle ether and the rays of the sun which penetrate- in this case, it is the rays of the inner sun shooting back out towards the exterior. I don't think that these rays have the same intensity to begin with, such that they don't get that far, nor do they generate the same intensity of gravity on the inner surface.
In this way, the gravity of the inner surface wouldn't need to be caused by centrifugal force, nor would mass need to be exerting attraction at the " end of the line " because the gravity charge would have diminished by then. The charge gets generated again after low frequency particles shoot back through and after they undergo a little bit of redistribution of frequency.
Norlan writes:
If gravity has nothing to do with mass, then how is there any
relationship between planetary bodies at all, and why does the moon seem to
have any effect on the tidal activities of the earth?
Dean:
Off hand, I'll offer this- Cater attributes the gravitational attraction of the Moon on the ocenas/tide to horizontal tractive gravity which is unopposed by the Earth's gravity. In other words, the Moon doesn't influence the tides from directly above, it is a sidelong attraction to water on the periphery of the globe.
The Earth possesses a negative gravity charge in the sense that the charge lodges itself between the atoms and molecules, but the atoms themselves still possess a net positive charge; this is the natural tendency for matter. Otherwise, why would the negative charge of gravity attach itself/lodge itself between the atoms of the Earth's crust? Therefore, the negative charges of the other planets still attract the largely positively charged Earth.
Norlan writes:
I belive there is definitely a relationship to Cater's theories and the
composition of the central sun, and that there must be some risidual effect
of the soft-partical physics on the radient light on the interior of the
earth's surface.
Dean writes:
Cater does give a very credible and cohesive explanation for luminosity withing the shell, it dovetails with the rest.
Norlan writes:
Electrostatic forces may in fact be responsible for gravity
as we know it, but it still seems perfectly suitable that the size of the
electrostatic generator may have something to do with the amount of force or
gravitational pull. So, perhaps mass is relative in an indirect way.
Just thoughts to ponder.
Dean writes:
I don't think that the size matters. A fundamental particle of an atom, such as an electron or a proton, has more inertia than the entire atom, which is closer to neutral.
Cater says that there is a relationship between the intensity of the gravitational field and the size of an orb, until a certain diameter, about 150 miles is reached. From that point onwards, intensity does not increase with size, such that some asteroids, mere asteroids, exhibit the same gravitational strength as the Earth; they hold huge moons in orbit that gravity based on their mass should not allow.
The reason that 150 miles of diameter is the critical diameter is that after 50 miles of penetration through matter, the penetrating ability of the charge diminishes greatly. So once the orb has a size of 50 miles on one side, 50 on the other, and 50 in the middle for good measure, the gravitational intensity does not increase with size, it remains constant, more or less, in spite of increases in the size of the orb.
You said " thoughts to ponder ", you have really been pondering!
Dean
ยทยทยท
on the surface of the earth, at lea! st! he didn't point out anything abnormal > or peculiar about their nature. Does Cater or his theory address these > items? > Dean writes: