[allplanets-hollow] Static electircity = gravity

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
1

Frode,
Good point.

This prompts me to write a comment that Dean made about the static
electricity ball that causes the hair to stand on its ends. Dean suggested
that this was evidence of the repulsion factor which causes flight according
to Cater, however, there are some contradictions to that observation. For
one, if you observe someone who is participating in this experiment, their
hair does not only rise upward. It repels away from the head, or source of
the static electricity. Yes, the hair on the top of the head rises upwards,
and since most of ones hair is on the top of ones head it appears as an
upward lift, however, the hair on the side of the head repels outward as well
away from the head and not upward as the theory would suggest. In fact, the
hair on the lower back portion of the head repels away from the head and
down. If it were the repulsion from the earth's magnetic force or
electrostatic pull,!
they all the hair would be repelled upward, would it not?
In addition, I saw the experiment done in a high school assembly where the
girl, with rather long hair, was bending over, and the majority of her hair
repelled downward. So, I don't think the repulsion theory is very well
supported by this observation. However, it is perhaps a microcosm of the
effect. If the head were considered the globe of the earth, and the hair the
objects which flew. Perhaps that shows the concept in principle. However,
that can be countered by the fact that the hair is touching the surface of
the head, and therefore the charge should be dissapated back into the head.
At least that's what I understood as the case on the surface of the earth.
If one is touching the surface of the earth then that electrostatic repulsion
is dissipated back into the earth and that is why people don't hover around
all the ti!
me. Yet, does levitaion exist? Isolated situations could be
explained by this force theory. Just some thoughts to kick around.

Norlan

2

[email protected] wrote:

Frode,
Good point.
This prompts me to write a comment that Dean made about the static
electricity ball that causes the hair to stand on its ends. Dean suggested
that this was evidence of the repulsion factor which causes flight according
to Cater, however, there are some contradictions to that observation. For
one, if you observe someone who is participating in this experiment, their
hair does not only rise upward. It repels away from the head, or source of
the static electricity. Yes, the hair on the top of the head rises upwards,
and since most of ones hair is on the top of ones head it appears as an
upward lift, however, the hair on the side of the head repels outward as well
away from the head and not upward as the theory would suggest. In fact, the
hair on the lower back portion of the head repels away from the head and
down. If it were the repulsion from the earth's magnetic force or
electrostatic pull,! they all the hair would be repelled upward, would it not?

Not necessarily. There are several factors here. One is the know theory
that like charges will repel each other. This accounts for the hair
spreading out. The other theory that Cater is proposing (whether it's
valid or not) is that negative charges tend to be repelled from the
earth. If Cater's theory is true but the negative charge produced by
the van degraff generator is relatively weak (compared to the strength
required to repel hair) then you will see little or no effect. Since
there is no data on this, no one knows what type of electrostatic
field strength is required to repel hair.

Looking at the photo it almost looks to me, as Dean mentioned, that
the hair on the right side slightly curves upward. This may be a optical
illusion or a bad camera angle if that's not what really is occurring.

Another factor, if Cater is to be believed, is that if the charge relative
to the earth is negative, then they will be repelled from earth. If the charge
is positive relative to the earth, then the hair will be attracted towards earth.
I guess it depends on the generator whether it's making high positive or high
negative voltage.

Another effect that we have to consider as well is the Biefield-Brown effect.
This effect has been well documented by many people and there are several
patents. According to Cater, this effect is due to the greater tendency for
an electron to move toward a proton than vice versa. I'm not sure how others
describe this effect.

I do know that tests have been done that show that model rockets will fly
higher if they have a large negative charge on them. This might be explained
by Cater's theory or possibly the Biefeld-Brown effect I suppose. Or possibly
other theories that I'm missing at the moment.

If you give any credit to esoteric reports, some "gurus" are able to levitate
up off the ground using only their mind power with this supposedly being
documented by witnesses. This has been reported during exorcisms as well.
It would be slightly easier for me to believe that some sort of "charge"
is built up to cause this effect rather than a wave emission if these
reports are to be believed.

My main point is that all know effects need to be considered when making
any determinations.

Jeff

3

Nolan and Jeff

I have done some checking on the Van De Graaff generator and have found that the top is generating a strong positive charge and not a negative charge. So by touching the top the girl is losing her electrons and become positively charged. On the picture that I posted to this group one can see that the hair is bending slightly up, especially on the side where the charged top is, so the bend can be caused by the repulsive charge from the top and the shoulders.

In Cater's books he refer to somebody standing close to a Van De Graaff generator, not somebody touching it. And the bottom part of a Van De Graaff generator will according to my understanding of the design throw out high concentrations of electrons. So I have to personally conclude that the picture does not bring us any further in proving or disproving Cater's theories.

Frode

4

Norlan,

In relation to your comments below, remember that the body possesses a natural net positive charge. This might also be influencing which way the hair sticks out.

Dean

Norlan wrote:

This prompts me to write a comment that Dean made about the static
electricity ball that causes the hair to stand on its ends. Dean suggested
that this was evidence of the repulsion factor which causes flight according
to Cater, however, there are some contradictions to that observation. For
one, if you observe someone who is participating in this experiment, their
hair does not only rise upward. It repels away from the head, or source of
the static electricity. Yes, the hair on the top of the head rises upwards,
and since most of ones hair is on the top of ones head it appears as an
upward lift, however, the hair on the side of the head repels outward as well
away from the head and not upward as the theory would suggest. In fact, the
hair on the lower back portion of the head repels away from the head and
down. If it were the repulsion from the earth's magnetic force or
electrostatic pul! l,! they all the hair would be repelled upward, would it not?

5

Members,

We may not be ready to absolutely accept that low frequency, electrostatic
charges are responsible for the effect of gravity. In other words, we may
not be able to positively confirm that.

But on the negative side, is there a concensus about the force and intensity
of gravity NOT corresponding well to the density of mass?

Dharma/Dean

6

Dean wrote:

But on the negative side, is there a concensus about the force and intensity
of gravity NOT corresponding well to the density of mass?

Very possibly. From what I've read, the original scientific experiments
to measure the gravitational constant (G) of mass had measurement errors
that I don't think were adequately researched in detail.

Specifically, when the masses were heated they had a greater attraction
for each other. This was explained away as being caused by convection
currents around the objects. I don't, personally, know of any reasonably
performed experiments that have proven that the cause was convection
currents.

Jeff

7

Members,

I am interested in taking a look at Cater's comments about gravity and the
Sun. I don't want to do this
in didactic sort of way- over the last several months we've gone over the
arguments in favor of gravity as an electrostatic force and it's probably up
to you all to consider and follow up as you please.

But I am interested in a little feedback insofar as the strength of these
two arguments which Cater presents in relation to gravity and the Sun. Would
a physicist have an easy time with these arguments? Would he be evasive and
say something about more research being needed.

Cater concludes that the Sun lacks a strong gravitational field because it
has little effect on the tides ( from the chapter on tides ):

" The analysis of tides presented above
http://www.skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index8.html [ second article
down ] forms the basis for proving that the surface gravity of the Moon is
greater than that on the sun. Since the sun and the Moon have the same
apparent diameters, viewed from the Earth, tidal effects produced by them
are directly proportional to their surface gravities. ... gravitational
effects vary inversely as the square of the distance away. Their [ the Sun
and the Moon ] aaparent diameters are inversely proportional to the
distance; therefore, their apparent surface areas also vary inversely as the
square of the distance Since the moon is a greater factor in producing
tides, the conclusion that the Moon has a greater surface gravity than the
Sun is inescapable! To the orthodox mind this produces insurmountable
paradoxes. The time has come for these to be resolved. This can only be
accomplished by probing deeper into basic causes."

He also concludes from the following observation of the solar surface that
the Sun does not exhibit gravity in relation to its mass, i.e., that gravity
is not caused by mass. From the subsection

Gravitational Anomalies: " The behavior of matte ejected by explosions on
the Sun's surface defies all of the popular laws of gravity. This matter
occasionally rises to altitudes of several hundred thousand miles. It does
not follow a trajectory in descending as it is supposed to. Also, its speed
of descent does not follow the law of falling bodies at any time. In fact,
the velocity of fall is much lower than expected. One of the reasons is the
low surface gravity of the Sun. Another reason is the variable quantity of
negative charges which impregnate these masses."

Dharma/Dean