Well, I've been working on Cater for a year and a half, so that is
why I am almost there, but not completely.
How do we explain all this to people? How do we convince Scott?
# ; ^ )
HEY DEAN!
Are you uh.... trying to make fun of me or somethun? I thought
the basic idear was that until I weed the book, I wouldn't go out uh ma
way to be too critical. Ya know... the beauty of silence? At
the
moment I am not in a mood to buy books and so it is live and let live
to borrow from the James Bond genera. (dum tada dum dum... dumb
dumb dumb.. dum tada dum dum... ta-dada-dada-dat! (repeat once
if the mood strikes you.) )
In a more serious tone, where words aren't purposely spelled
wrong
to play the unsophisticated backwoods boy I sometimes feel like, it
might
very well be that a "Cateresk" point of view will hold key points to the
final answer. I don't know. It might be that Dean has leap froged ahead
of me in the understanding of all these questions. (Can you actually do
that
Dean? # : - )
Dean keeps stating that Newton won't work for a hollow earth. He
then suggests that in some instances a Newtonian type equation will be
fairly
accurate for smaller amounts of mass but not for planet wide
accumulations.
It could be that when Dean first heard of the null gravity hypothesis for
the
inner earth areas, a topic I have researched quite a bit, he made a leap
of
intuition or saw evidence on one of those nay saying web sites that says
a
gravity field inside of a hollow shell structure would be impossible. If
we
are to decide that Newton is yesterdays news, it should be because
someone
like myself has gone to the bother of making an extensive study of the
question. It is not so much that my purpose is to bet all my cards on
Newton, but that measuring everything will stand as a stronger type of
proof than just leaps of intuition. If I extend to Newtonian gravity
every
benefit of the doubt, I will know much more than I would have if I up and
stated that Newton should be abandoned. Believe it or not, by taking
Newtons ideas on gravity to the nth degree, it has actually stimulated my
imagination and if that is the end result of my personal expedition for
knowledge, it will have been well worth the time.
Personally, if Cater is right with his soft particle, hard
particle,
frequency shift business, I have heard about ad nausea, it will be that
we
live in a universe and a world where fanciful unsubstantiated ideas have
displaced the measurable, quantitative sciences.
Dean replied once to me that there really were no calculations
for
all this stuff in the Cater gravity. If I am hesitant to jump on that
band
wagon, it will be because I treasure the form of science where things can
be measured and where the predictions of theory can actually accurately
predict outcomes in natural phenomena.
Scott
PS: Forgive my bad spelling above. I felt in a gleeful mood and got
carried away.
Related thread: Gravity and clouds — Answers the 'Black, White and Bleach' exchange of 9-10 Jul 2001