I´ll have to concede that I am wrong when I say that a weightless
body has no inertia.
Even so, the inertia of a weightless body doesn´t disturb the balance
between centrifugal force and gravity specifically because it is
weightless. Weightless mass in the interior of the Earth is held in
place due to structure, but has no weight to disturb the balance
between the " weighted " matter on the outer shell of the planet and
centrifugal force.
The weightless matter, with inertia, continues to orbit from within
the planet without disturbing the rest of the structure, involving "
weighty " matter on the surface.
Even though no gravity radiations make their way to the weightless
mass of the interior, you still stipulate that " the conducive
subatomic particles of the weightless matter have to interact with
the Sun producing a required balance in gravitation ... " But the
gravity doesn´t reach them. The Sun, so to speak, doesn´t reach them.
You are invoking gravity´s action at a distance in a scheme of
gravity where the action at a distance, the gravity-inducing
radiation, was aready stopped. You are still applying the Newtonian
concept of complete penetration to a scheme which explained why that
is not so. You recognise this one minute, and then ignore it the
next.
Again, I feel that you are projecting your desire on the argument so
much that you are grabbing stuff off the wall, " believing," and
then falling victim to the intensity of your own desire. I think that
you would argue till you were blue in the face. You simply project
some logic that you can defeat on the other person´s argument. That´s
the same as setting up a straw man and knocking him down.
All of the arguments in favor of gravity as an electromagnetic force,
all the phenomena which this concept explains and others don´t, are
still standing.
And it is not just Mr. Cater and Dr. pari Spolter which hold this
view- she quotes a whole group of astronomers who complain that deep
space observations don´t correspond to the gravity generated by the
mass observed, they complain about the " missing mass."
Back to your mode of arguing- I, too, get frustrated when I can´t get
something through to a
person, such as the HET. But I don´t react by acting the role of the
accusative victim, the scorned genius, and throwing tantrums that
disturb the ordinary course of things on the list; nor do I resort to
defining the arguments of the other person.
I´ve seen astrologers do that- they want to be the great predictors
so badly that they make up logic and results which support their
desire. They build a whole world around themselves, become reclusive
and get involved in subcultures away from the reality that mainstrem
society imposes.
If your arguments are so good, and don´t upset the status quo of
Newtonian gravity, then why can´t they be accepted by mainstrem
physics? It sems that the orthodoxers might want a little more
justification to support their concept of gravity.
Anyway, we´ll see how far this goes, but I am not happy with the mood
that has been brought onto the list. You were always free to expose
the list members to your concepts, but never did. You certainly block
other concepts, though, which you don´t agree with. This is not good.
Check out these comments from Daniel Ross's book UFOs and the Complete
Evidence from Space-
Back in the early 1960's, a famous Russian scientist carried out a long
study of Mars at the Crimean Observatory, which left no doubt that the red
color of Mars seen from Earth-based observation is not the color of its
surface. The astrophysicist, Dr. N. Kozyrev, published his sensational
report in April 1962, based on years of spectroscopic observations which
proved that the red appearance was the result of the sun's interaction with
an upper layer of a dense Martian atmosphere. Further measurements convinced
the scientist that the density of the Martian atmosphere was very near to
the density of the Earth's atmosphere .
This study could not be confirmed until space probes could travel to Mars
and photograph the planet. By now, everyone has seen the standard hemisphere
photograph of the " red planet," taken by Viking 1 in 1976 and reproduced on
Plate 13 ( Attached as RedwashMars on the right ). That picture has been
published in numerous magazine articles and science journals, and of course,
in all the school textbooks. In actuality, that is not a true picture of the
planet. It is a black and white image taken through a red filter by the
Viking Orbiter camera, as the space probe neared the completion of its
journey to Mars.
The brilliant Russian scientist was entirely correct in his studies. With
this book, for the first time the truth can be shown. The Viking probe did
carry color television cameras, and from a distance of 336,000 miles, filmed
the planet as it really is. That picture is reproduced on Plate 14 (
Attached as MarsTrueColor on the left ).
Mars is finally unveiled! The supporting evidence in this book should
finally vindicate Percival Lowell, Dr. Slipher, Cedric Allingham, George
Adamski and others, who courageously told the world that Mars was inhabited
with an telligent civilization.The false-grey, computer-processed,
red-orange surface and pink sky photographs can be thrown away, or filed
away as irrevelant. The latter were specifically processed to supplement,
and boost, the rigid theories of orthodox science.
Yahoo Groups removed 2 attachments from this message: MarsTrueColor105.jpg (image/jpeg), RedwashMars.gif (image/gif)
Dean, since you recognize a very slight correction from things I
have said I will call it victory enough that you appear to recognize
that I do make the attempt to think logically. I think one problem we
have is that sometimes the basic underlying premise to an argument
has an effect on the way that discussion is carried out.
In your opening sentence I sense that our basic definitions between
"weight" and "mass" are not from the same dictionary. Weight and
mass differ. Like my astronaut in my low Earth orbit example a mass
body that was on the ground prior to liftoff acquires a weightless
condition
once in a stable orbit. It acquires what many physicists describe as a
pseudo or centrifugal force. This force is very real though not a
natural
force in its own right, since it is the result of the effect of a body
falling
an infinite distance but not actually undergoing a decaying orbit. It is
through particular patterns of the existing forces that a centrifugal
force
arises.
I also take that by weightless you imply that the mass has in fact not
changed but that conditions surrounding the object have resulted in an
alteration of its measurement of weight and not mass since the mass
still exists with a constant number of constituent subatomic particles.
I think you are confusing my playing the devil advocate with agreement
or recognition. To become fluent in the faith of the Buddhist is
possible
without actually embracing or participating in that faith. I ask you
for
one specific experiment that has taken account of what is going on
deeper inside that Earth than anyone has every ventured that this effect
of the frequency change or gravity radiations stop. Failing to do this,
I can only pronounce that your ideas are but a theory. Nothing more.
You do make a habit of ignoring the scientific method!
You seek acceptance of Cater's theories. It would be more forthcoming
if his theory provided provisions for definition. Newton might have a
few strikes against him, but I prefer to embrace that which has been
proven
both superior in logic and demonstrable in formula.
And you do not feel intense at times during our discussions? Can it not
be said that you as well fall victim to not being able to define Caterism
as I repeatedly ask he be defined with formulas mathematics and
computer analysis. Remember, a theory is only considered "scientific"
if the scientific method can be applied to it. How many times in history
has a break through not been accepted unless the proper high level of
documentation and proof is supplied? People need to find continuity.
Having a nifty theory of gravity is one thing. Being able to predict by
calculations an accurate reflection of the real world is the other side
of
the coin. Newtonians at least attempt to calculate things. Your theory
does not.
standing.
Your opinion. This theory is dependent on too many assumptions about
the Earth beneath our feet and where the unknown is defined to suit your
purposes. It is like a lion trainer with an invisible chair. The
trainer
might believe it is there. It is little wonder why you have such a
difficult
time in convincing the lion of a perception he doesn't recognize. Then
you use facts which are not in evidence to suggest the nature of gravity
beneath our feet.
As to the gravity of the Sun not penetrating the Earth's diameter, you
point to the tides as evidence of this but to be really convincing
something
more is required. I endeavor to fill in the gaps with a module on Solar
tides in my program. My intent is to determine the exact velocity of
waters at various latitudes and see how they jive with tide data. This
may
take me a while because it is extremely complex and I am concentrating
on other areas at this time.
I recall you very recently lecturing me why I would consider black holes
and neutron stars so far away as evidentiary when what you deemed was
a good evidence for the Cater theory was close by in the clouds. Even
that doesn't really convince me about your theory of gravity. I went
through
how the negative charges repel water vapor molecules forming a sort of
balloon or low density region where these charges have built up. A
dissipation of this charge will allow droplets to form when they are no
longer induced to remain as far apart. This explanation works for me
and as for your declaring that it is antigravity, I disagree. Any
magnetic polarity will repel like charges and the electrical current
along wires and in motor coils behave the same way. That doesn't make
it antigravity. These concepts of mine could no more be considered
antigravity than a hot air balloon.
As for the "missing mass" argument, I know what that is about. It is a
real toss up even today for astronomers who adopt the open closed or
curved universe to defend their position. Some believe that if enough
mass exists in the universe the cosmic expansion will eventually abate
and stop and then because it was gravity that caused the abatement of the
expansion, like a ball tossed into the air, it will all begin to come
together
again into what some have termed the "giant crunch" or words to that
effect. Astonomers don't find enough sufficient mass in the universe to
justify this slow down of the expansion. They come up with or invent
to be frank, this idea of "dark matter" to make up the difference. This
has little to do with the functioning of mass on a planetary scale.
Another example where people confuse themselves is in stating objections
to Keplers 3 laws of planetary motion. Because or the distribution and
rotation of large galactic spiral galaxies, they call into doubt Keplers
laws
when the stars don't appear to follow the rules of orbital period and
distance
from the hub of the galactic structure. My tentative answer for this is
shown
in the example of ice capades skaters forming a line and spinning it in
the middle.
It is very difficult, more likely impossible for the skaters to achieve
by themselves
the required speed to "orbit" the hub which will match that angular
momentum
of skaters closer in. When they clasp hands it becomes a different
situation.
This is likened to the stars further out in the galactic arm being
"pulled"
around the hub of the galaxy by the gravity force from the bunches of
stars
that are immediately closer to the center. It is not a repudiation of
Kepler in
any way.
I have endeavored in this e-mail to stay on topic and not attack you. As
I
have stated before, I take no real pleasure in doing so.
In the last two e-mails, you declare that I build up this false concept
or
straw man according to my own design and it is that alone which enables
me to destroy "him". I find it odd that you seem to spend more time
talking about psychology than you do talking about the meatier parts
of science.
As for the comment above that I build up a logic that supports my
desire, really Dean, I come out with as many scientific examples as you
do. Do you really consider me to be a recluse?
I see no justification for your taking hypothetical unproven non verified
suppositions, like the conditions that actually exist in the "cork" and
how gravity radiation doesn't penetrate that far, and considering it a
defensible fact. You are equally guilty as I of... "grabbing stuff off
the
wall, " believing," and then falling victim to the intensity of your
own
desire."
I actually have the idea that I am the best thing that could happen to
you Dean! Lets take one of your assumptions to an extended degree.
That is that your ideas are right and will prove them one day to a great
many more people than you communicate with now. What I have done
for you is to reconsider things, shake out the bugs or minor
inaccuracies
as they could exist in your theory. You will have grown in debating
skills
and perhaps found out that there are better ways to communicate them.
Yes, in whatever form or fashion our common goal is to promote what we do
have in common, the belief that the world is hollow.
I don't mean this as a concession, but I got to thinking about what we
all
don't know. This means that looking into the Buddhist monks levitating
rocks is on topic to learning more. I was puzzled by the fact that your
article made the bulk of its points about sound and not electricity or
magnetism in raising the rocks.
Now just to better define your theory of electromagnetic radiation would
you clarify something for me. If sound is used to as you call it "scare
out
all the soft particles" and you declare that gravity is a frequency of
electromagnetic radiation, (I'm just trying to pin down a mildly
accurate
definition of your guys theory) it would almost seem to me that this
effect of gravity must come in and out of existence in a cyclical way.
Like a sine wave graph in trigonometry or on an oscilloscope, the peaks
and deep valleys are where the gravity exists since it touches on that
exact coincidence of both frequency and magnitude. By the monks using
sound to move the rocks is it your idea that it is a very low end order
spectrum of vibration that causes the rocks to levitate from sound where
otherwise gravity from the Sun is engaged on a very much higher frequency
octave? And if this is the case, then within the electromagnetic range
we are
aware of more than one or two frequency oscillations or octaves exist to
cause a gravitational effect. ( I was just free thinking here.) If that
is the
case then it would suggest that there could be more than one single
frequency
to the idea of control over gravity. The onus lies in isolating just
where those
octaves are located. Does Cater say anything about that?
Still, I am mystified by your thought processes. Don't take this in the
wrong way
Dean. After all a very wise man sometimes doesn't give advice since he
realizes
that another person has to learn it by themselves in order to truly
understand the
significance of wise counsel.
You admit that the "cork" is both weightless and now apparently has
inertia.
You state that the radiation doesn't penetrate past the 50+ mile level
and this
is the cause of the weightless condition of the cork.
Now it is my understanding that an object which has no mass would also
have
no inertia. Yet, you just agreed with me that the cork would have
inertia.
This the same thing as suggesting that centrifugal force, a pseudo force
exists
within the cork strata. I just cannot conceive how it can be that the
amount of
cork material within the planets structure is held in a stable orbit and
yet doesn't
perform any work on its own behalf to counter the centrifugal force which
I
assume we both accept it to have. Now the only possible out for this
theory
would be like you stated before a reduction of weight in the "cork" due
to some
magical frequency shift. I suppose that for all intents and purposes you
assume
that this matter disappears?
Read on, new ideas discussed:
I was taking a walk after my daily bike ride when it occurred to me to
ask you more
details about your theory. The cork is not involved in gravity reaction
with the Sun.
Correct from your standpoint? Am I to assume that the The Earth's own
gravity force
is being generated by the entire mass of the planet or just the areas
near the crust
within the 50 mile limit. It would seem like something very strange that
the same matter
not involved with the Sun gravitationally speaking actually is attracting
objects to
the Earth.
Here is another one. Does the Sun produce its gravitational radiation
from it's
entire mass or just the areas near the surface like the Earth? If the
cork inside of
the Earth literally doesn't contribute to maintaining a stable orbit,
then might one
assume that a great portion of the Sun actually is in the same category?
After all
it is probably being held in a galactic orbit by a central star or
combined gravities of
many millions of stars in the hub of the milky way galaxy.
Is it a paradox to assume that the switch is off between the Sun and the
cork strata,
yet the same cork is actively engaged in attracting the Moon to orbit our
Earth? We
might go a further step stating that only a small portion of the Sun was
active in
attracting the Earth to it.
I had an analogy one time about how a large reel or spindle on one
railroad car had its
line attached to a second railroad car. On the second car, a smaller
reel or spindle was
connected to the first car. When they both began turning at the same
rpm, the larger
reel immediately takes up all the slack and draws the second car toward
it while
the line from the smaller reel to the first car actually developed a
slack line. If one
declared that the action of the two reels was both symbolic to gravity,
then obviously
both emitted gravity but only the effects from the larger body (reel) had
any real effect.
Analogies like this are a bit perplexing. I think that sometimes I might
error in not
comparing apples to apples even though the logic seems sound.
In the prior several paragraphs I was not agreeing with your theory but
offering questions
that proponents of any gravity theory ought to be aware of. You admit to
centrifugal force
even for "weightless" matter. Since every mass spun on a string must
have a strong enough
string to keep the mass from flying off, I still cannot envision why that
isn't necessary for
the Earth. The very act of the cork in the middle moving in a curing arc
around the sun
should demand a counterbalance Simply canceling the effect from the Sun
on such strata
is insufficient to explaining what is acting out the role of the string.
The mass of the planet
doesn't disappear. If we could stop the Earth in its tracks, would we
find it to weigh less
than it should if we had a large enough scale. Would the mass not remain
constant?
My chief query has yet to be answered satisfactorily by you. What acts
as the string
for the cork?
Dean, since you recognize a very slight correction from things I
have said I will call it victory enough that you appear to recognize
that I do make the attempt to think logically.
Scott,
Victory enough? I think that our problem has to do with your not recognizing that certain phenomena, which you have hardly addressed, do not correspond to Newtonian gravity. I refer to weighty clouds which float, missles/rocket bodies which return from the Van Allen belt, asteroids which hold Moons in orbit larger than Newton's mass-related gravity would permit, a far-side tidal bulge which isn't caused by any penetrating gravity of the Moon, and atmosphere on planet's and the Moon which doesn't correspond to the ability of the mass to hold down.
This all started out when you addressed me in a vicious, sheerly contemptuous manner after I quoted a doctor of physics ( Spolter ) who had written a book questioning Newtonian gravity- Dr. Spolter didn't even think enough to reply to you. She replied to me when all I said was " I liked your book," but she didn't even rocognize your " contentions " as you say, about gravity. Maybe we'll call it " victory enough " that you can't just brush aside the criticisms of Newtonian gravity.
Snip
I also take that by weightless you imply that the mass has in fact not
changed but that conditions surrounding the object have resulted in an
alteration of its measurement of weight and not mass since the mass
still exists with a constant number of constituent subatomic particles.
Yes, and this condition can be brought about in the depths of a large orb because the gravity-inducing radiation does not reach the mass there, at least not fully, such that the mass does not exhibit the same weight. Rock becomes like cork.
Even so, the inertia of a weightless body doesn't´t disturb the
balance between centrifugal force and gravity specifically because it is
weightless. Weightless mass in the interior of the Earth is held in
place due to structure, but has no weight to disturb the balance
between the " weighted " matter on the outer shell of the planet and
centrifugal force.
The weightless matter, with inertia, continues to orbit from within
the planet without disturbing the rest of the structure, involving " weighty "
matter on the surface.
Even though no gravity radiations make their way to the weightless
mass of the interior, you still stipulate that " the conducive
subatomic particles of the weightless matter have to interact with
the Sun producing a required balance in gravitation ... " But the
gravity doesn't´t reach them. The Sun, so to speak, doesn't´t reach
them.
You are invoking gravity´s action at a distance in a scheme of
gravity where the action at a distance, the gravity-inducing
radiation, was already stopped. You are still applying the Newtonian
concept of complete penetration to a scheme which explained why that
is not so. You recognize this one minute, and then ignore it the
next.
I think you are confusing my playing the devil advocate with agreement
or recognition. To become fluent in the faith of the Buddhist is possible
without actually embracing or participating in that faith. I ask you for
one specific experiment that has taken account of what is going on
deeper inside that Earth than anyone has every ventured that this effect
of the frequency change or gravity radiations stop. Failing to do this,
I can only pronounce that your ideas are but a theory. Nothing more.
You do make a habit of ignoring the scientific method!
Of course the electromagnetic concept is a theory. The whole hollow earth theory is just a theory because nobody has made the helocopter tour yet with the camcorders whirring away. But it is an educated guess compared to a blind guess. We look at the phenomena which is available to our perception and see that gravity related to the density of mass doesn't always correspond. We can logically disprove that it is anything Newtonian causing tides on the far side of the Earth- the Moon's gravity loses penetrating ability in regard to just a few miles of ocean water directly below it, while it jerks the water around over twice as much in the higher latitudes where its sidelong glance isunopposed by any earth below. That's the point, there is enough to go on disprove the Newtonian concept in the world around us, and the phenomenon of clouds suggests, if not indicates, an electrostaticnature to gravity.
You seek acceptance of Cater's theories.
It is not Cater's ballgame. There are many strong voices in science doubting the Newtonian concept. Dr. Spolter mentions several starting on page 110 of her book, culminating with the comments made by a known astro-physicist closing a symposium of the International Astronomical Union:
" A great number of astronomers, theoretical physicists, and particle physicists, in the United States and in the International community, are now actively engaged in work on various aspects of the "missing mass" problem. 112' To close a symposium of the International Astronomical Union held in Princeton in 1985, Scott Tremaine, a theoretical astrophysicist working in this field, states:
The dominant impression which I carry away from this meeting is that extragalactic astronomy has reached a crisis."
All of the comments are attached above as " Missing Mass. "
It would be more forthcoming
if his theory provided provisions for definition. Newton might have a
few strikes against him, but I prefer to embrace that which has been proven
both superior in logic and demonstrable in formula.
I've already given examples of phenomna which don't correspond to the Newtonian concept. Clouds are a huge experiment which hang above our heads everyday. It is just incredible that Newtonian thought has remained intact for 300 years with unexplained mass floating above in the skies. The explanations about how microsopic water particles flux back and forth to avaporous state, and that this keeps cloudsafloat, is absurd. this would maybe retard the descent of clouds and have them fall within a few minutes, rather than come crashing down immediately. That's all. And the standard Newtonain interpretation that the tides on the far side are caused by the Moon's gravity, which penetrated to the center of the Earth, is simply moronic. What is this about "demonstratable in formula?" Do you wear blinders?
And you do not feel intense at times during our discussions? Can it not
be said that you as well fall victim to not being able to define Caterism
as I repeatedly ask he be defined with formulas mathematics and
computer analysis.
Do I get intense? Yes, but I argue honestly and don't just jockey for position.
And Mr. Cater doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of Newtonian gravity being incorrect. " Inability "? No, I give lots of good examples of gravity that doesn't correspond to mass, although you usually start talking about neutron stars or demand that I write it inmath to prove it. But I don't dance to your tune. Why don't you write in the language of math why a rain cloud doesn't fall on your head at 32 feet per second?
Remember, a theory is only considered "scientific"
if the scientific method can be applied to it. How many times in history
has a break through not been accepted unless the proper high level of
documentation and proof is supplied?
You are waning pale. You don't address my examples.
Your opinion. This theory is dependent on too many assumptions about
the Earth beneath our feet and where the unknown is defined to suit your
purposes.
You are ignoring my previous evidence and then goingon and pronouncing things. What is the assumption about the weight of a cloud? If we accept space probe evidence, then why don't we accept space probe evidence when we see a huge, rapid Moon orbiting an asteroid with insufficient mass to hold it down? When Newton is disproven, we say what? " More research is required."
Your opinion. This theory is dependent on too many assumptions about
the Earth beneath our feet and where the unknown is defined to suit your
purposes. It is like a lion trainer with an invisible chair. The trainer
might believe it is there. It is little wonder why you have such a difficult
time in convincing the lion of a perception he doesn't recognize. Then
you use facts which are not in evidence to suggest the nature of gravity
beneath our feet.
You're full of baloney.
As to the gravity of the Sun not penetrating the Earth's diameter, you
point to the tides as evidence of this but to be really convincing something
more is required.
It is as plain as day. The Moon can cause over double the tide in the polar areas with only a side-long angle, while directly below in the equatorial regions, the Moon causes half the tidal effect. In the Polar areas there is no Earth behind the side-long angle of the Moon to oppose the Moon's tide-causing gravity. Directly below, with reference to only the depth of the oceans, the Moon's gravity already has to struggle and can only cause half of the tide. And you say that I have to presnet more evidence? I have two eyes and a brain, and I think for myself. How about that?
You are like the attendant of the king who has no clothes. When someone brings this to the attendant's attention, even though the situation is obvious. " Write it in math." How about this- Three feet of tides in the equatorial region, 5 - 8 in the polar areas.
I am not going to go on with you. We are going 'round and 'round- you are either not responding to arguments, or else you are dismissing them with no basis. The rest of your arguments are a re-hash.
Your mode of arguing is more akin to a bitch routine than anything honest. You are so attached to your position that you are fooling yourself and not seeing the logic of the other side. You are like the cave dwellers in Plato's Republic. The man comes back down from the mouth of the cave and announces that there is a world of light above. But the cave dwellers are so attached to their shadows that they become angry at him for disturbing their illusions, and become aggressive towards him.
I don't want this mood to continue on the list. People get tired of it, it poisons the atmosphere. I will go on with the threads that I enjoy, and I expect that you won't make any more vicious and contemptuous remarks, nor engage in wrangling, because that will be the end of your association with the list. The list members will judge me. I might continue to argue a bit on Jan lamprecht's list because, after all, this has been good exposure. But I imagine that he might just puta stop to it, too.
Dharma/Dean
Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message: Missing mass.doc (application/msword)