I believe they are also known as "neon," lights. So am I right to assume it
is neon gas that's inside?
MM
I believe they are also known as "neon," lights. So am I right to assume
it
is neon gas that's inside?
What determines the gas they use?
From What I understand, these lights are living proof of Cater's science,
right? These gases get agitated by radiations, electricity, and in turn
disturb the ethers which produce photons of light. Cater outlines this in
chapter 13.
So does some gas agitate easier?
Dean/Dharmapada
Frode,
Where does Cater describe the way in which hard particles are trapped within
the soft ones? ( Pac Man! ) Got a chapter of page number?
Dean
Neon makes the orang-ish colored lights that say restaurants' names, for
example. Neon lights aren't the same as fluorescent lights.
Nimueh
dean wrote:
···
> I believe they are also known as "neon," lights. So am I right to assume
it
> is neon gas that's inside?What determines the gas they use?
>From What I understand, these lights are living proof of Cater's science,
right? These gases get agitated by radiations, electricity, and in turn
disturb the ethers which produce photons of light. Cater outlines this in
chapter 13.So does some gas agitate easier?
Dean/Dharmapada
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/5480/12/_/_/_/964558830/
------------------------------------------------------------------------To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Frode,
Where does Cater describe the way in which hard particles are trapped within
the soft ones? ( Pac Man! ) Got a chapter of page number?Dean
At page 179 you find a description with pictures.
Frode
Frode,
Action at a distance ( in relation to gravity )? I ask this about action at
a distance- How does the Sun keep us in its orbit? Does the Sun hook on to
the Earth with its radiations that induce gravity? Isn't this planet a bit
heavy to be held up by some radiations, or am I thinking of weight in
relation to mass again? Gravity ( falling and rising ) is due to
electrostatic charge, not mass.
Maybe the planet, therefore, has no weight. The planet is just floating, and
radiations attach themselves to it and swing it around asily as it has no
weight, is that it?
What do you say?
Dean
Frode,
Action at a distance ( in relation to gravity )? I ask this about action at
a distance- How does the Sun keep us in its orbit? Does the Sun hook on to
the Earth with its radiations that induce gravity? Isn't this planet a bit
heavy to be held up by some radiations, or am I thinking of weight in
relation to mass again? Gravity ( falling and rising ) is due to
electrostatic charge, not mass.Maybe the planet, therefore, has no weight. The planet is just floating, and
radiations attach themselves to it and swing it around asily as it has no
weight, is that it?What do you say?
Dean
Planets have weight/inertia duo to the overall positive charge of matter. But since you only need to consider the weight of a honeycombed shell, there is not much weight to consider, at least when we compare it to the traditional approach of a solid Earth. Another point will be that the inner sun consist of negative weight in the form of left over soft electrons radiated from the Sun (this might reduce the overall inertia of Earth considerably).
The radiation from the Sun consist of very little gravity radiation, it actually has less surface gravity then on earth. The gravity effect that hold the Earth in orbit around the Sun is duo to the Law of Redistribution of Energy. High energy radiation from the Sun is redistributed into lower frequencies when it encounter matter. Some of this redistributed radiation is in the part of the spectrum that have the the gravitational effect.
There is no action at a distance in a traditional sense. The photon that left the sun towards the earth takes maybe, let us say, 9 minutes before it is reduced to the vibratory frequency of gravity radiation. Action at a distance is a term that means instant action without time (I might be wrong). That would not be the case with the gravitational theory of Cater.
Frode
>Dean
>
Planets have weight/inertia duo to the overall positive charge of
matter. But since you only need to consider the weight of a
honeycombed shell, there is not much weight to consider, at least
when we compare it to the traditional approach of a solid Earth.
Another point will be that the inner sun consist of negative weight
in the form of left over soft electrons radiated from the Sun (this
might reduce the overall inertia of Earth considerably).
Frode- The inner sun is negative weight- a beautiful point!
I understand the following points, I understand how gravity is created here,
within the shell, as Cater outlines.
But what keeps the planet hooked in orbit in relation to the sun? Once it
receives gravity-inducing radiations which make it float, why doesn't the
planet wander off on its own course.
I don't think that action at a distance implies anythin instant, it refers
more to the link.
Dean
. > The radiation from the Sun consist of very little gravity radiation,
···
it actually has less surface gravity then on earth. The gravity
effect that hold the Earth in orbit around the Sun is duo to the Law
of Redistribution of Energy. High energy radiation from the Sun is
redistributed into lower frequencies when it encounter matter. Some
of this redistributed radiation is in the part of the spectrum that
have the the gravitational effect.There is no action at a distance in a traditional sense. The photon
that left the sun towards the earth takes maybe, let us say, 9
minutes before it is reduced to the vibratory frequency of gravity
radiation. Action at a distance is a term that means instant action
without time (I might be wrong). That would not be the case with the
gravitational theory of Cater.Frode
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
The Aryan race can easily be seen to stretch from Northern India to
Scandanavia and in European Russia. How far would it be from the Artic coast
of the European side of the polar basin to the opening indicated by current
hollow Earth researchers, which is offset from the North Pole on the Russian
side? A hop, skip and a jump- no more than a few hundred miles. So how
difficult would it be for the Caucasian/Aryan race to re-introduce itself
and its culture to the surface of the planet from this particular opening at
the end of every Kali Yuga? It does not seem that it would be so difficult
at all.
The fact that the Caucasian race is so light skinned in Northern Europe is
indicative, also. It suggests that any migration began from that region,
then proceded downwards. This is because in the Middle East and India, the
race is a bit darker. It is easier to go from a light complexion to a darker
complexion, while is is harder to believe that darker skinned Caucasians
migrated Northwards, then became sun bleached to their present blond haired,
blue eyed state. Therefore, we can surmise that the Caucasians are not
Caucasian in origin but rather, that their surface migration began in
Northern Europe, along the Artic basin, near the opening. The reader maykeep
in mind that in milleniums past, these areas were not as cold as they are
now. As an example, I'll mention that Viking graves from 1,000 years ago
have been opened up in Greenland, and it was found that roots, at that time,
had penetrated the coffins. Now the graves lie under permafrost. This means
that, previously, vegetation existed in the area and that there was a
different climate.
Get on the updates! Let's talk about the Hollow Earth Theory from the
geological point of view, the possibility of an inner sun, what role would
gravity play, what is gravity?
Dharmapada/Dean