Jeff,
I will ask around. I know of someone who recently told me of a mirror store
they went to in the city to get some good mirrors. They said that mirrors is
all that this store sold.
MM
[email protected] wrote:
Jeff,
I will ask around. I know of someone who recently told me of a mirror store
they went to in the city to get some good mirrors. They said that mirrors is
all that this store sold.
Thanks MM.
ยทยทยท
---------------
Dean wrote:
Jeff,
I imagine that a concave surface would be a major element.
How many surfaces did Cater use?
He doesn't seem to say. The photo in his book shows 11 mirrors.
I don't think the number of surfaces is part of my problem. Each
reflection gets dimmer and dimmer in my model.
Cater mentions concave is preferable. He doesn't say it's required
though.
--------------
Dean wrote:
Jeff,
It is interesting to me to look at the way in which you and Frode see Cater.
You both seem to see him more in terms of how soft particles relate to
experiments and such, whereas I zero in on the Hollow Earth Theory and how
soft particles relate to a hollow Earth geological model.
I'm just trying to take some of the theory and work it into
something that is observable. Since I'm not sure, at this point,
that I want to make a journey up to the North pole (due to worries
of plane mechanical problems, getting lost & running out of fuel,
freezing to death in the arctic, losing a few toes, and other funs stuff 
I'm wanting to do some stuff to keep busy.
The mirror experiment would be a good example of something that probably
couldn't be easily explained by most using mainstream physics. Plus it might
not be prohibitively expensive to do.
I got to do something to keep busy. 
Jeff