Hey everyone,
I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
Take care, Semisi
Another great video, thanks.
Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
Brian
Hollow space orb theory.wmv
···
--- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@...> wrote:
Hey everyone,
I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
Take care, Semisi
Brian the Brit (not brat!),
To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
http://www.holloworbs.com/Location_Orifice.htm
The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@...> wrote:
Another great video, thanks.
Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
BrianHollow space orb theory.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU--- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
> I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> Take care, Semisi
>
Brian Brit,
You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
Southern opening:
http://www.holloworbs.com/Antarctic%20aurora.htm
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@...> wrote:
Brian the Brit (not brat!),
To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
>
> Another great video, thanks.
>
> Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> Brian
>
> Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
>
> --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone,
> > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > Take care, Semisi
> >
>
Hi Dean
I agree. Never mind we can keep it in the bag for any future blooger who is a super scientist. I listened to it because the author has some facts that may be revolutionary for those in the know. On the other hand he may be delusionary like I am at atimes. What also intrigued me was the clear esoteric references. It was like listening to the Adept in Etidorohpa (which I dont necesdsarily agree with because it contradicts scripture).
Followed up your link to the Hollow Earth Blogspot. Solid information there that makes me even more convinced that the hollow earth is for real. In fact, the evidence is growing rapidly and perhaps one day soon it will all come out into the open.
Brian (the Brit not Brat!)
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@...> wrote:
Brian the Brit (not brat!),
To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
>
> Another great video, thanks.
>
> Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> Brian
>
> Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
>
> --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone,
> > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > Take care, Semisi
> >
>
Dean
I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.
You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
Brian
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@...> wrote:
Brian Brit,
You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
Southern opening:
Dean
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
>
> Brian the Brit (not brat!),
>
> To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
>
> But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
>
> Location_Orifice
>
> The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
>
> Dean
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> >
> > Another great video, thanks.
> >
> > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > Brian
> >
> > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey everyone,
> > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > Take care, Semisi
> > >
> >
>
Brian,
Yes, you are definitely a Brit and not a brat!
I also sift through anything that exists because you never know where you will find a jewel.
It is just amazing how much interest in the hollow earth is springing up.
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@...> wrote:
Hi Dean
I agree. Never mind we can keep it in the bag for any future blooger who is a super scientist. I listened to it because the author has some facts that may be revolutionary for those in the know. On the other hand he may be delusionary like I am at atimes. What also intrigued me was the clear esoteric references. It was like listening to the Adept in Etidorohpa (which I dont necesdsarily agree with because it contradicts scripture).Followed up your link to the Hollow Earth Blogspot. Solid information there that makes me even more convinced that the hollow earth is for real. In fact, the evidence is growing rapidly and perhaps one day soon it will all come out into the open.
Brian (the Brit not Brat!)
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
>
> Brian the Brit (not brat!),
>
> To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
>
> But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
>
> Location_Orifice
>
> The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
>
> Dean
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> >
> > Another great video, thanks.
> >
> > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > Brian
> >
> > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey everyone,
> > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > Take care, Semisi
> > >
> >
>
Brian,
And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts them to the Sun.
It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics. After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
Have a good day.
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@...> wrote:
Dean
I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
Brian--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
>
> Brian Brit,
>
> You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
>
> Southern opening:
>
> Radarsat
>
> Dean
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> >
> > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> >
> > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> >
> > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> >
> > Location_Orifice
> >
> > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Another great video, thanks.
> > >
> > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Dean
Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.
Brian
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@...> wrote:
Brian,
And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts them to the Sun.
It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics. After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
Have a good day.
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
>
> Dean
> I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.
>
> You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
>
> What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
>
> BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
>
> Brian
>
> --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> >
> > Brian Brit,
> >
> > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> >
> > Southern opening:
> >
> > Radarsat
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > >
> > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > >
> > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > >
> > > Location_Orifice
> > >
> > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Brian,
Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved, and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.
In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled The Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look around.
Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak. But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies, are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic radiations.
Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)
What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles below, underneath all that rock.
This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead in their tracks.
What say ye?
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@...> wrote:
Dean
Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.Brian
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
>
> I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts them to the Sun.
>
> It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics. After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
>
> Have a good day.
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> >
> > Dean
> > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.
> >
> > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> >
> > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
> >
> > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian Brit,
> > >
> > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > >
> > > Southern opening:
> > >
> > > Radarsat
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > >
> > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > >
> > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > >
> > > > Location_Orifice
> > > >
> > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > > > > Brian
> > > > >
> > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
I think,Because the gravity is low in the inner earth,the People inside should
be a lot taller than we are.
···
________________________________
De: Dean D <[email protected]>
Para: [email protected]
Enviado: vie, mayo 13, 2011 8:19:43 PM
Asunto: [allplanets-hollow] Re: Gravity :
Brian,
Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of
gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved,
and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.
In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled The
Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look around.
Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom
actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research
was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets
emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington,
D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had
earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each
planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak.
But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the
positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies,
are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths
below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic
radiations.
Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how
would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from
point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)
What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust
that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If
not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from
above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend
all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building
that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio
tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles
below, underneath all that rock.
This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if
gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick
crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity
that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the
hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a
hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a
nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to
say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead
in their tracks.
What say ye?
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@...>
wrote:
Dean
Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can
understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both
video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.Brian
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
>
> I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to
Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic
radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy
that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass
itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little
gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little
gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts
them to the Sun.
>
> It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of
understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people
aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics.
After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
>
> Have a good day.
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@>
wrote:
> >
> > Dean
> > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to
me.> >
> > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you
state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell
me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> >
> > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God
created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen
photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we
may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.> >
> > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to
Location_Orifice
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian Brit,
> > >
> > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the
southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence
that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the
we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings.
We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things
such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > >
> > > Southern opening:
> > >
> > > Radarsat
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > >
> > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > >
> > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the
Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > >
> > > > Location_Orifice
> > > >
> > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video,
but now I have found it again. This is it:> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel
just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text
to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it
myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio.
What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at
this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible.
If this video was posted before, then my apologies> > > > > Brian
> > > > >
> > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts
I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Victor,
The gravity is supposed to be less in the hollow earth, i.e., the inner-earth surface gravity, and that should produce taller, stronger, and more intelligent human beings.
We are the surface are very stunted compared to them. This much Olaf Jansen related.
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], victor sevigny <victorsevigny@...> wrote:
I think,Because the gravity is low in the inner earth,the People inside should
be a lot taller than we are.________________________________
De: Dean D <deandddd@...>
Para: [email protected]
Enviado: vie, mayo 13, 2011 8:19:43 PM
Asunto: [allplanets-hollow] Re: Gravity :Brian,
Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of
gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved,
and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled The
Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look around.Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom
actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research
was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets
emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington,
D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had
earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each
planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak.
But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the
positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies,
are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths
below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic
radiations.Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how
would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from
point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust
that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If
not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from
above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend
all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building
that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio
tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles
below, underneath all that rock.This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if
gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick
crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity
that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the
hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a
hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a
nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to
say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead
in their tracks.What say ye?
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@>
wrote:
>
> Dean
> Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can
>understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both
>video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.
>
>
> Brian
>
> --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
> >
> > I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to
>Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic
>radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy
>that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass
>itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little
>gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little
>gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts
>them to the Sun.
> >
> > It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of
>understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people
>aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics.
>After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
> >
> > Have a good day.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@>
>wrote:
> > >
> > > Dean
> > > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to
>me.
>
> > >
> > > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you
>state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell
>me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> > >
> > > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God
>created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen
>photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we
>may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
>
> > >
> > > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to
>Location_Orifice
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brian Brit,
> > > >
> > > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the
>southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence
>that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the
>we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings.
>We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things
>such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > > >
> > > > Southern opening:
> > > >
> > > > Radarsat
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > > >
> > > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the
>Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > > >
> > > > > Location_Orifice
> > > > >
> > > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video,
>but now I have found it again. This is it:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > > >
> > > > > Dean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@>
>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel
>just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text
>to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it
>myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio.
>What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at
>this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible.
>If this video was posted before, then my apologies
>
> > > > > > Brian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@>
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts
>I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Brian, Victor,
Here are some interesting opening comments by Cater on the nature of electromagnetic gravity effects from Chapter Four of Cater's book:
"CHAPTER 4
MORE ON THE NATURE OF GRAVITY AND DIRECTLY RELATED TOPICS WHICH INCLUDES THE NATURE OF LIGHT, SOFT PARTICLES, THE ETHERS AND HOW
THE SUN HOLDS THE PLANETS IN ORBIT
As mentioned previously, gravity effects are produced by a highly penetrating portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which falls between the lowest fringes of the infrared and the higher frequencies of the radar band. It is on the order of about a trillion cycles per second. Most of the energy radiated by the sun is in the ultraviolet range and above. Only an infinitesimal part of it is in the lower frequencies which contain the gravi ty radiations. Therefore, the sun has a very low surface gravity as evident by the tidal effects it produces.
The law of redistribution of energy, not stated in any textbooks, plays a vital role in the benefits any planet receives from a sun. Briefly, it states that when radiant electromagnetic energy interacts with matter, the re sulting radiation as a whole is of a lower frequency than the original light. The Raman effect, named after the physicist who discovered it, C. V. Raman, partly confirms this principle. Some of the aspects of the Raman effect seemed to violate this law when part of the resultant light was of a higher frequency than the original. This light was produced by triggering the release of higher energies in the atoms during Raman's ex periments and was not a part of the original light.
The redistribution law is still only a special case of a more general law which states that energy, regardless of form, can only flow downhill or from a higher potential to a lower one. The famous second law of thermodynamics is a special case of this law.
The law of redistribution of energy accounts for temperatures at lower elevations being generally greater than at the higher altitudes. As the ra diant energy from the sun passes through the atmosphere, increasing portions of the light are transformed into lower frequencies such as in frared, which activates the thermal motion of atoms and molecules, and produces heat. This process continues downward, even after the energy from the sun reaches the surface. Before continuing with this phase of the discussion, another concept of paramount importance must be introduced."
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@...> wrote:
Brian,
Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved, and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.
In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled The Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look around.
Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak. But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies, are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic radiations.
Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)
What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles below, underneath all that rock.
This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead in their tracks.
What say ye?
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
>
> Dean
> Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.
>
> Brian
>
> --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
> >
> > I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts them to the Sun.
> >
> > It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics. After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
> >
> > Have a good day.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dean
> > > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.
> > >
> > > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> > >
> > > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
> > >
> > > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brian Brit,
> > > >
> > > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > > >
> > > > Southern opening:
> > > >
> > > > Radarsat
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > > >
> > > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > > >
> > > > > Location_Orifice
> > > > >
> > > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > > >
> > > > > Dean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > > > > > Brian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Dean
Thanks for this explanation Its a bit clearer now. Is there a video on this. I will also search for the document you referred to and let you know when I find it.
Brian
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@...> wrote:
Brian,
Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved, and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.
In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled The Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look around.
Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak. But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies, are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic radiations.
Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)
What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles below, underneath all that rock.
This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead in their tracks.
What say ye?
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
>
> Dean
> Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.
>
> Brian
>
> --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
> >
> > I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts them to the Sun.
> >
> > It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics. After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
> >
> > Have a good day.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dean
> > > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.
> > >
> > > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> > >
> > > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
> > >
> > > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brian Brit,
> > > >
> > > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > > >
> > > > Southern opening:
> > > >
> > > > Radarsat
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > > >
> > > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > > >
> > > > > Location_Orifice
> > > > >
> > > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > > >
> > > > > Dean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > > > > > Brian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Dean
I dont have a scientific mind and I must confess this is heavy stuff. Notwithstanding, if I have to do a presentation on this one day it will be useful. Will add this to my data base on hollow earth. I am grateful to you Dean for taking time to unearth this chapter for us.
Brian
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@...> wrote:
Brian, Victor,
Here are some interesting opening comments by Cater on the nature of electromagnetic gravity effects from Chapter Four of Cater's book:
"CHAPTER 4
MORE ON THE NATURE OF GRAVITY AND DIRECTLY RELATED TOPICS WHICH INCLUDES THE NATURE OF LIGHT, SOFT PARTICLES, THE ETHERS AND HOW
THE SUN HOLDS THE PLANETS IN ORBITAs mentioned previously, gravity effects are produced by a highly penetrating portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which falls between the lowest fringes of the infrared and the higher frequencies of the radar band. It is on the order of about a trillion cycles per second. Most of the energy radiated by the sun is in the ultraviolet range and above. Only an infinitesimal part of it is in the lower frequencies which contain the gravi ty radiations. Therefore, the sun has a very low surface gravity as evident by the tidal effects it produces.
The law of redistribution of energy, not stated in any textbooks, plays a vital role in the benefits any planet receives from a sun. Briefly, it states that when radiant electromagnetic energy interacts with matter, the re sulting radiation as a whole is of a lower frequency than the original light. The Raman effect, named after the physicist who discovered it, C. V. Raman, partly confirms this principle. Some of the aspects of the Raman effect seemed to violate this law when part of the resultant light was of a higher frequency than the original. This light was produced by triggering the release of higher energies in the atoms during Raman's ex periments and was not a part of the original light.
The redistribution law is still only a special case of a more general law which states that energy, regardless of form, can only flow downhill or from a higher potential to a lower one. The famous second law of thermodynamics is a special case of this law.
The law of redistribution of energy accounts for temperatures at lower elevations being generally greater than at the higher altitudes. As the ra diant energy from the sun passes through the atmosphere, increasing portions of the light are transformed into lower frequencies such as in frared, which activates the thermal motion of atoms and molecules, and produces heat. This process continues downward, even after the energy from the sun reaches the surface. Before continuing with this phase of the discussion, another concept of paramount importance must be introduced."Dean
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved, and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.
>
> In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled The Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look around.
>
> Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
>
> Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak. But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies, are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic radiations.
>
> Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)
>
> What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles below, underneath all that rock.
>
> This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead in their tracks.
>
> What say ye?
>
> Dean
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> >
> > Dean
> > Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
> > >
> > > I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts them to the Sun.
> > >
> > > It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics. After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
> > >
> > > Have a good day.
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.
> > > >
> > > > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> > > >
> > > > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
> > > >
> > > > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian Brit,
> > > > >
> > > > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Southern opening:
> > > > >
> > > > > Radarsat
> > > > >
> > > > > Dean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Location_Orifice
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dean
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > > > > > > Brian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Dean.If the gravity of the sun hold the earth where it is,what would happen if a
big planet pass between the earth and the sun?If the planet is bigger than
the sun,the earth would not be following the big planet?
···
________________________________
De: Dean D <[email protected]>
Para: [email protected]
Enviado: lun, mayo 16, 2011 12:27:11 AM
Asunto: [allplanets-hollow] Re: Gravity :
Brian, Victor,
Here are some interesting opening comments by Cater on the nature of
electromagnetic gravity effects from Chapter Four of Cater's book:
"CHAPTER 4
MORE ON THE NATURE OF GRAVITY AND DIRECTLY RELATED TOPICS WHICH INCLUDES THE
NATURE OF LIGHT, SOFT PARTICLES, THE ETHERS AND HOW
THE SUN HOLDS THE PLANETS IN ORBIT
As mentioned previously, gravity effects are produced by a highly penetrating
portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which falls between the lowest fringes
of the infrared and the higher frequencies of the radar band. It is on the order
of about a trillion cycles per second. Most of the energy radiated by the sun is
in the ultraviolet range and above. Only an infinitesimal part of it is in the
lower frequencies which contain the gravity radiations. Therefore, the sun has a
very low surface gravity as evident by the tidal effects it produces.
The law of redistribution of energy, not stated in any textbooks, plays a vital
role in the benefits any planet receives from a sun. Briefly, it states that
when radiant electromagnetic energy interacts with matter, the resulting
radiation as a whole is of a lower frequency than the original light. The Raman
effect, named after the physicist who discovered it, C. V. Raman, partly
confirms this principle. Some of the aspects of the Raman effect seemed to
violate this law when part of the resultant light was of a higher frequency than
the original. This light was produced by triggering the release of higher
energies in the atoms during Raman's experiments and was not a part of the
original light.
The redistribution law is still only a special case of a more general law which
states that energy, regardless of form, can only flow downhill or from a higher
potential to a lower one. The famous second law of thermodynamics is a special
case of this law.
The law of redistribution of energy accounts for temperatures at lower
elevations being generally greater than at the higher altitudes. As the radiant
energy from the sun passes through the atmosphere, increasing portions of the
light are transformed into lower frequencies such as infrared, which activates
the thermal motion of atoms and molecules, and produces heat. This process
continues downward, even after the energy from the sun reaches the surface.
Before continuing with this phase of the discussion, another concept of
paramount importance must be introduced."
Dean
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@...> wrote:
Brian,
Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of
gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved,
and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled
The Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look
around.Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom
actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research
was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets
emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington,
D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had
earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each
planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak.
But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the
positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies,
are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths
below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic
radiations.Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how
would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from
point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust
that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If
not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from
above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend
all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building
that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio
tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles
below, underneath all that rock.This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if
gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick
crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity
that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the
hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a
hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a
nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to
say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead
in their tracks.What say ye?
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
>
> Dean
> Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can
understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both
video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.>
> Brian
>
> --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
> >
> > I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to
Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic
radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy
that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass
itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little
gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little
gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts
them to the Sun.
> >
> > It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of
understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people
aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics.
After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
> >
> > Have a good day.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Dean
> > > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to
me.> > >
> > > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you
state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell
me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> > >
> > > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why
God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen
photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we
may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.> > >
> > > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to
Location_Orifice
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brian Brit,
> > > >
> > > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the
southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence
that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the
we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings.
We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things
such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > > >
> > > > Southern opening:
> > > >
> > > > Radarsat
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > > >
> > > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of
the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > > >
> > > > > Location_Orifice
> > > > >
> > > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original
video, but now I have found it again. This is it:> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > > >
> > > > > Dean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian"
<wayministry@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no
reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a
text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I
use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the
video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not
into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory
presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies> > > > > > Brian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@>
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some
treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I
hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Brian,
I doubt that you will find videos on the subject, but you might find Cater's book online, or parts of it.
Here is something that I wrote in an article of the subject, taken mostly from Cater's book. The following explains the phenomonon depicted in Etidorpa, the phenomenon of diminishing gravity as one penetrates the crust; diminishing to the pont where it drop off to nil.
Mr. Cater maintains that gravity effects are produced by a highly penetrating portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which falls between the lowest fringes of the infrared and the higher frequencies on the radar band: "The greatest contributing factor to Earth and Moon gravity is the transformation of radiation resulting from the thermal agitation of atoms and molecules. The particles resulting from this activity are lower frequency. Such radiation is more readily transformed into gravity-inducing radiations, because it is closer to this frequency band to begin with. A significant portion of such radiation, originating miles below the surface, is transformed into gravity-producing energies by the time it reaches the surface.
Most of the Moon and Earth gravity radiations are created in the first fifty miles of their crusts. Below that level, much of the energy from the Sun has been transformed into softer particles, and the material of the Earth and Moon is permeated with them.
Soft particles will [ in turn ] screen out [ any deeper penetration by ]the gravity radiations more effectively than solid matter because the ethers that they are associated with are closer in frequency to those of the gravity radiations."(Chapter Four)
This last point, about soft particles screening out gravity radiations deep within the crust, is very important. Mr. Cater is presenting gravity shielding. This means that further down, in the deep interior of the Earth's shell, the effects of gravity diminish. "The reason for the limited penetrating ability of gravity effects becomes evident. Since gravity radiations produce forces, it follows that there are interactions which eventually disperse the radiation." (Chapter Four)
One result of this gravity screening is that a person's weight becomes reduced at that level. In such an environment, a grown person could run faster and jump higher, to say the least! Wear and tear on the body and energy consumed would all be lessened; and one's duration of life, physical strength, intelligence, memory and stamina could be very different from that which we currently experience on the surface. And how would animals and reptiles develop in such an environment?
Another result of gravity screening is presented by Mr. Cater in Chapter Four : "A major objection to the existence of giant caverns deep inside the Earth covering millions of square miles, is that the roofs should collapse, even in low gravity. The high concentrations of combinations of soft particles inside these caverns screen out gravity radiations far more effectively than solid matter. Therefore, the roofs of these caverns have little or no gravity affecting them."
We can discuss this all you want, Brian. Do tell me what you think of the concept.
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@...> wrote:
Dean
Thanks for this explanation Its a bit clearer now. Is there a video on this. I will also search for the document you referred to and let you know when I find it.
Brian--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved, and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.
>
> In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled The Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look around.
>
> Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
>
> Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak. But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies, are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic radiations.
>
> Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)
>
> What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles below, underneath all that rock.
>
> This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead in their tracks.
>
> What say ye?
>
> Dean
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> >
> > Dean
> > Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
> > >
> > > I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts them to the Sun.
> > >
> > > It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics. After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
> > >
> > > Have a good day.
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.
> > > >
> > > > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> > > >
> > > > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
> > > >
> > > > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian Brit,
> > > > >
> > > > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Southern opening:
> > > > >
> > > > > Radarsat
> > > > >
> > > > > Dean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Location_Orifice
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dean
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > > > > > > Brian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Dean
I appreciate the time you have taken to explain this -- it is a lot clearer this time. It has helped me to see why ceilings to caverns do not collapse despite being so deep below the surface.
In diagrams I have examined of the crust to a hollow earth the centre of gravity (zero gravity) is shown as at a distance half way between the two surfaces. How does this tie in with Cater's theory? And would the centre of gravity necessarily be half way if the radiation from the outer sun is different from the radiation (if it exists) of the inner sun which are constituted differently?
Brian .
···
--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Dean D <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Dean D <[email protected]>
Subject: [allplanets-hollow] Re: Gravity :
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 23:08
Brian,
I doubt that you will find videos on the subject, but you might find Cater's book online, or parts of it.
Here is something that I wrote in an article of the subject, taken mostly from Cater's book. The following explains the phenomonon depicted in Etidorpa, the phenomenon of diminishing gravity as one penetrates the crust; diminishing to the pont where it drop off to nil.
Mr. Cater maintains that gravity effects are produced by a highly penetrating portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which falls between the lowest fringes of the infrared and the higher frequencies on the radar band: "The greatest contributing factor to Earth and Moon gravity is the transformation of radiation resulting from the thermal agitation of atoms and molecules. The particles resulting from this activity are lower frequency. Such radiation is more readily transformed into gravity-inducing radiations, because it is closer to this frequency band to begin with. A significant portion of such radiation, originating miles below the surface, is transformed into gravity-producing energies by the time it reaches the surface.
Most of the Moon and Earth gravity radiations are created in the first fifty miles of their crusts. Below that level, much of the energy from the Sun has been transformed into softer particles, and the material of the Earth and Moon is permeated with them.
Soft particles will [ in turn ] screen out [ any deeper penetration by ]the gravity radiations more effectively than solid matter because the ethers that they are associated with are closer in frequency to those of the gravity radiations."(Chapter Four)
This last point, about soft particles screening out gravity radiations deep within the crust, is very important. Mr. Cater is presenting gravity shielding. This means that further down, in the deep interior of the Earth's shell, the effects of gravity diminish. "The reason for the limited penetrating ability of gravity effects becomes evident. Since gravity radiations produce forces, it follows that there are interactions which eventually disperse the radiation." (Chapter Four)
One result of this gravity screening is that a person's weight becomes reduced at that level. In such an environment, a grown person could run faster and jump higher, to say the least! Wear and tear on the body and energy consumed would all be lessened; and one's duration of life, physical strength, intelligence, memory and stamina could be very different from that which we currently experience on the surface. And how would animals and reptiles develop in such an environment?
Another result of gravity screening is presented by Mr. Cater in Chapter Four : "A major objection to the existence of giant caverns deep inside the Earth covering millions of square miles, is that the roofs should collapse, even in low gravity. The high concentrations of combinations of soft particles inside these caverns screen out gravity radiations far more effectively than solid matter. Therefore, the roofs of these caverns have little or no gravity affecting them."
We can discuss this all you want, Brian. Do tell me what you think of the concept.
Dean
--- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@...> wrote:
Dean
Thanks for this explanation Its a bit clearer now. Is there a video on this. I will also search for the document you referred to and let you know when I find it.
Brian--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Well, I am willing to spoon feed the concept of electromagnetic source of gravity effects to anyone, to the extent of my understanding. But it's involved, and I would have to dredge up a few pages from Cater and explain as we go along.
>
> In fact, Joseph H. Cater's book just might be online. It used to be entitled The Awesome life Force, but is now called The Ultimate Reality. I'll look around.
>
> Let me start by familiarizing you with a few concepts.
>
> Cater notes the research of a Nobel Prize winner named Lippincott that the atom actually has a slight net positive charge. This is the key, but this research was swept under the rug and suppressed. And you might already know that planets emit radiation. I remember going to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., where there was an exhibit called The Family of the Sun. They had earphones set up which played recordings of the radiations emitted by each planet, it was very intriguing, you could listen to the planets, so to speak. But radiations are composed of negatively charged particles. This means that the positively charged particles of mass on the surface, for example, our bodies, are held down by the negatively charged waves that radiate out from the depths below. And there you have it- gravity effects are due to electromagnetic radiations.
>
> Otherwise, if gravity were simply due to the mere existence of mass, then how would mass act over a distance in order to attract some other mass, i.e., from point A to point B? (There's a bit more to it)
>
> What arises is the phenomenon of mass and structure way deep within the crust that has no gravity effects to it. It is weightless, "attractionless" mass. If not, no cavern worlds could exist because the accumulated, superior weight from above would crush them. You see, the frequency of the radiation doesn't extend all the way down because it meets forces opposed. If you walk into a building that has thick concrete walls, a Walkman radio will lose the signal from a radio tower for the same reason; what to speak of the situation 200 or 300 miles below, underneath all that rock.
>
> This is hugely important for the Hollow Earth Theory in general because, if gravity effects are due to the mere existence of mass, then an extremely thick crust would be necessary in order to produce the measured quantity of gravity that we have, and to keep the accumulated, superior weight from crushing the hollow world, too. And such a thick crust really doesn't leave much space for a hollow world, nor for the idea of a central sun within, what to speak of a nuclear sun; and an inner sun has been sighted by Arctic explorers. I dare to say that newtonian gravity kills the Hollow Earth and Cavern Worlds Theory, dead in their tracks.
>
> What say ye?
>
> Dean
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> >
> > Dean
> > Wow, that is interesting, Thanks for explaining that to me and in terms I can understand. This is important. Would you please recommend which links (both video and/or documentay) I can go to and read more about this.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > And I am not one of the old timers by any means.
> > >
> > > I think that what blew my mind most is when I studied gravity according to Cater, the idea being that gravity effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation at a certain frequency. In other words, it is the charge, the frequncy that any given mass is imbued with that causes gravity effects, not the mass itself. So in the depths below, you can have mass and structure with little gravity to it, or none. Cater even makes the case that the Sun exerts little gravity attraction. It is the planets that generate the frequency which attracts them to the Sun.
> > >
> > > It was hard for me to adjust to these ideas at first, and the kind of understanding that one just can't throw out on the list and explain. Most people aren't too concerned with the scientific justification when it involves physics. After all, we even have satellite photos which justify things enough, you know?
> > >
> > > Have a good day.
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > > I just realised I did not respond fully to this post of yours directed to me.
> > > >
> > > > You know, I have been researching the HE for only four weeks whereas you state you have been researching it for a decade! Man, thats a long time! Tell me more. Surely by now your mind must have been blown by the emerging evidence?
> > > >
> > > > What I find so fascinating in all this is that for years I wondered why God created a solar system with life on only one planet. Now I have seen photographic evidence of openings other planets (like Mars) I realise that we may have neighbours much closer to home than we have traditionally believed.
> > > >
> > > > BTW I gave a wrong link in my last post. You had referred to Location_Orifice
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian Brit,
> > > > >
> > > > > You know, this video of the Arctic opening, along with the one of the southern opening, are probably the two greatest individual pieces of evidence that we have, period. When I first got on hollow earth lists 11 years ago, the we used to speculate and engage in deduction over the location of the openings. We would look at things such as wind patterns and correlate them with things such as reports of warm temperatures. Now we have videos. Amazing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Southern opening:
> > > > >
> > > > > Radarsat
> > > > >
> > > > > Dean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "Dean D" <deandddd@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brian the Brit (not brat!),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To tell the truth, the audio you found didn't do much for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I found something right next to it that did. It is the video of the Arctic opening as shown and described, with stills, on this page:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Location_Orifice
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The stills are from the original video. I had lost the original video, but now I have found it again. This is it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6SU_RpHF2o&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dean
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "BritishBrian" <wayministry@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another great video, thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Today I found this video or I should say audio since there is no reel just a single picture. The producer anonymises himself or herself behind a text to speeach software voice (I know this because being partially sighted I use it myself) and does so for very reasons which are divulged in the video/audio. What he or she shares does not make sense to me because I am not into science at this oevel. I would be interested to know if the theory presented is credible. If this video was posted before, then my apologies
> > > > > > > Brian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hollow space orb theory.wmv
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXUTXwP6aTU
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Maka" <semisibond@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > > > > > I found this you-tube video with some treasure/concepts I haven't been aware of regarding hollow earth concepts. I hope you enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ntsww-n0LY&feature=related
> > > > > > > > Take care, Semisi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
http://www.holloworbs.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]