On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:22:25 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:
Scott,
Good point about standards of proof. We have better proof for the HET than the evolutionists have, but we get kicked to one side. Science is supposed to be objective, but in the matter of what evidence gets accepted and what evidence gets rejected, things are not so cut and dried.
Your consideration of gravity as something related to sets of individual, atomic particles has captured my curiosity. Would this concept account for asteroids being able to hold relatively large moons in their grasp, without enough mass in the Newtonian scheme to do so?
Dean, I'm not really sure. I am not very familiar with this concept of small asteroids*
holding objects in orbit about themselves at velocities that would be indicative of*
a much higher amount of mass according to what Newtonian notation might expect.*
What I was doing was trying to put a couple theories on the same page showing that*
they were essentially saying the same thing and that it wasn't a case of disagreement*
after all. I am reminded of an example in science that concerns the propagation of light.*
You have heard about the polarization of light? Using filters they can stop light altogether*
if the filter is rotated 90 degrees. However, and here is the amazing part, if two filters are*
used in conjunction of 45 degrees the light passing through each filter is somehow twisted*
in such a way that it takes on the characteristics of light that is not otherwise suited to pass*
through the next filter. It causes the light to be able to pass through both filters where a single filter stopped it completely. * * This was poorly explained but I saw it done in a mechanical Universe series program. It* * was watching this program series that I acquired a great deal of my understanding of the* *laws of physics and scientific law. *
It was an attempt on my part of thinking outside of the box. You speak of the inadequacies of Newton to account for all phenomena observed when considering gravity as a mass product. Fine. Regardless of how we label this function, whether it* * be about soft and hard particles, ether, or mass products inversely squared, one thing seems certain, whatever*
gravity really is it is akin to the settlers in the old west circling their wagons to defend themselves against the Indians. Matter seems to be the core issue.*
One point further. From the little I have gleamed on the hard particle soft particle discussion,*
and by the idea that gravity only penetrates 50 miles down into the crust, is your opinion then that this concept of Cater's also has the effect of breaking down the inverse square law*
which has been proven both in gravity and in magnetics to a high degree of precision?*
If the inverse square law were to be broken down, then it might facilitate in some way a normal inner surface gravity though I am not quite sure just how this would be so.*
The inverse square law strikes me as one thing on the outer surfaces of planetary bodies but I wonder if there is a difference in the interior of planets based on a focusing or lens effect. Gravity to the best of our understanding radiates omni-directional from the center of*
stellar bodies. It stands to reason that radiating rays, wave or whatever truly describes this phenomenon begin close to the planet very tightly packed but as they venture off into space*
from the surface of the planet or star the perspective from one ray path to another begins ever so slightly to widen out. Could it be that gravity actually never weakens in its intensity*
with extreme distance but that as a function of wave density it becomes weaker. A corresponding analogy is to consider the rays upon the northern hemisphere in winter as*
opposed to summer. We are actually closer to the Sun in the winter time, but temperature*
and radiant energy absorbed by the Earth's surface is actually a function of angles. (ie. 12 lines each an inch apart strike a perpendicular surface at intervals of inch units. Turn the*
perpendicular plane at an angle and each path will be widened out when striking the surface. This suggests that despite the mathematics of geometry and dimension which states that there are an infinite* * number of points between any two points, the rays or waves or energy photon packets that* * are received by us form the Sun, are finite in number and therefore limited. An increase of area which* * they are broadcast to causes a diminishment of their effect on that surface. *
If this is the case and on the inner surface of the Earth, the terrain is concave rather than*
convex, would the effective nature of gravity from the shell be focused tighter than here on*
the outer surface? Lines of force in the interior world would have a tendency to increase*
density of surface area, at least up to a certain point. A simple analogy is a magnifying*
glass that can burn paper when focused on it. One question for those like myself who*
concern themselves with the null gravity hypothesis set forth by the establishment deals*
with focus through the entire interior hollow. Could gravity "something" from the opposite*
side of the planet act according to the inverse square law but be opposed by a focusing*
effect where one might "stand" on the inner surface making for a magnification of the gravity effect? Note these are only questions. Proving something is another matter.*
Scott
PS: A suggestion to the group: It would be handy and less time consuming if every reply to large graphics intensive e-mails could be sent without recopying again and again the same*
original e-mail. Also, if you have a one sentence reply to a single person, send it to them as*
a private e-mail unless you have to share it with everybody. E-mails to the list should be well considered insights and not just Ditto talk. * * People get turned off by this. We want the group to grow and not stagnate from its own indulgences.*
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Standards of Proof
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:22:25 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:
Dean, I'm not really sure. I am not very familiar with this concept of small asteroids*
holding objects in orbit about themselves at velocities that would be indicative of*
a much higher amount of mass according to what Newtonian notation might expect.*
Ok.
What I was doing was trying to put a couple theories on the same page showing that*
they were essentially saying the same thing and that it wasn't a case of disagreement*
after all.
_ * Well, gravity as an electromagnetic radiation is a different animal._
* Snip
It was an attempt on my part of thinking outside of the box.*
_ * I certainly recognized some original thinkinmg there. this is what we have to do._
You speak of the inadequacies of Newton to account for all phenomena observed when considering gravity as a mass product. Fine. Regardless of how we label this function, whether it* * be about soft and hard particles, ether, or mass products inversely squared, one thing seems certain, whatever*
gravity really is it is akin to the settlers in the old west circling their wagons to defend themselves against the Indians. Matter seems to be the core issue.*
_ * In Cater's scheme, total charge is the core of the issue. When he points to asteroids that don't have enough mass to hold their moons in orbit, matter ceases to be the core issue. Once a planet expands beyond the critical 150 mile diameter, it retains only something akin to Earth-like gravity even though its amount of matter increases. More on the penetration of the gravity radiation in a minute._
One point further. From the little I have gleamed on the hard particle soft particle discussion,*
and by the idea that gravity only penetrates 50 miles down into the crust, is your opinion then that this concept of Cater's also has the effect of breaking down the inverse square law*
which has been proven both in gravity and in magnetics to a high degree of precision?*
If the inverse square law were to be broken down, then it might facilitate in some way a normal inner surface gravity though I am not quite sure just how this would be so.*
_ * My understanding is that the inverse square law applies to the gravity radiation throughout outer space, but that the penetration of the radiation falls dramatically after 50 miles because of forces opposed- a strata of different frequency, but similar enough to attenuate and finally block the penetration of the gravity radiation._
_ * The gravity which exists along the inner surface of the cavity does not pass through the shell and reach that part. It is generated within the crust of the inner shell by the radiations which penetrate from the cavity and become transformed, by the process of redistribution of frequency, down to the gravity frequency. The inner sun and the cavity's atmosphere, however, don't bombard the inner shell with the same intensity of radiation which we receive on the surface, such that the gravity generated within the inner surface is not as strong as on the surface._
The inverse square law strikes me as one thing on the outer surfaces of planetary bodies but I wonder if there is a difference in the interior of planets based on a focusing or lens effect. *
_ * In Etidorhpa, the Man notices light magnifying the size of his buttons! the light is passing through soft particles which are convering towards the center of the planet, not that they all reach it. But the gravitational force attenuates just because the radiation which induces gravity effects meets forces opposed._
Gravity to the best of our understanding radiates omni-directional from the center of*
stellar bodies. It stands to reason that radiating rays, wave or whatever truly describes this phenomenon begin close to the planet very tightly packed but as they venture off into space*
from the surface of the planet or star the perspective from one ray path to another begins ever so slightly to widen out. Could it be that gravity actually never weakens in its intensity*
with extreme distance but that as a function of wave density it becomes weaker. *
_ * This could fit in with gravity as an radiation, it could behave this way.._
A corresponding analogy is to consider the rays upon the northern hemisphere in winter as*
opposed to summer. We are actually closer to the Sun in the winter time, but temperature*
and radiant energy absorbed by the Earth's surface is actually a function of angles. (ie. 12 lines each an inch apart strike a perpendicular surface at intervals of inch units. Turn the*
perpendicular plane at an angle and each path will be widened out when striking the surface. This suggests that despite the mathematics of geometry and dimension which states that there are an infinite* * number of points between any two points, the rays or waves or energy photon packets that* * are received by us form the Sun, are finite in number and therefore limited. An increase of area which* * they are broadcast to causes a diminishment of their effect on that surface. *
If this is the case and on the inner surface of the Earth, the terrain is concave rather than*
convex, would the effective nature of gravity from the shell be focused tighter than here on*
the outer surface?
_ * But the gravity doesn't pass through the shell, it diminishes greatly after 50 miles. The behavior of tides suggests that gravity doesn't even penetrate the first 7 or 8 miles uniformly._
It even seems that
Lines of force in the interior world would have a tendency to increase*
density of surface area, at least up to a certain point. A simple analogy is a magnifying*
glass that can burn paper when focused on it. One question for those like myself who*
concern themselves with the null gravity hypothesis set forth by the establishment deals*
with focus through the entire interior hollow. Could gravity "something" from the opposite*
side of the planet act according to the inverse square law but be opposed by a focusing*
effect where one might "stand" on the inner surface making for a magnification of the gravity effect? Note these are only questions. Proving something is another matter.*
_ * Proving is even farther away. You'd have to come up with the mechanics for such an operation, and then go about proving. But I like the non-orthodox thought._
DD
Scott
PS: A suggestion to the group: It would be handy and less time consuming if every reply to large graphics intensive e-mails could be sent without recopying again and again the same*
original e-mail. Also, if you have a one sentence reply to a single person, send it to them as*
a private e-mail unless you have to share it with everybody. E-mails to the list should be well considered insights and not just Ditto talk. * * People get turned off by this. We want the group to grow and not stagnate from its own indulgences.*
Dean
` 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/).