Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Clouds and gravity
Scott,
We are getting close to being on the same page. By mass product I'll
assume that you are referring to gravity related to the density of
mass. Well, it is. Mr. Cater even admits that. But not on a planetary
scale, something happens which changes the correspondence.
After all, can it not be stated that if the
Not exactly a normal extension of things because orthodox sceince
doesn't admit that negatively charged soft particles are harbored
between water molecules.
All gravity does is effect material bodies and it
No, it is not a stand alone phenomenon. The charge needs mass to have
a charge on, so to speak.
It is a matter of a net positive charge responding. matter carries a
net, positive charge, a slight one. Cater cites an experiment by
Richard Lipmann in this regard. ( I will send these comments
separately and call them comment on Lipmann ) With clouds, the
particles are repulsed by the gravitational field.
This for all the world makes it appear that the
Fine. But when the frequency changes, gravity effects are no longer
induced. Then you still have matter with a charge on it, you still
have mass, but no gravity effects. This is the key.
Einstein's famous formula right or wrong
Alright, the particles on mass have a charge on them. Cater doesn't
deny this. It is just that, with penetration, the frequency isn't
going to remain the same, there is no reason foritto speed up, so
what is it going to do? the timewill come when it slows down. Lower
frequency results, that's outside of the rangethat inducesgravity.
Your side of the coin becomes incorrect when hundreds of miles of the
Earth's shell come to lack the gravity charge. Rock becomes like
cork. ( The effects diminish gradually, it doesn't happen at exactly
50 miles. )
Snip-
Jan Lamprecht if memory serves me suggested in his book
Jan hedged his bets and left open many possinbilities.But he did
state that gravity doesn't exhibit repulsion and that it cannot,
therefore, be electromagnetic. The negative charge carried by soft
particles is noteasy to perceive, so no one understands how it is
that clouds are imbued with the negative charge.
But Cater is ascribing effects to electromagnetic repulsion, i.e.,
antigravity, which go beyond turbulence, air resistence and such.
Suggesting that water having a mass HAS
Tons of water simply float. Isn't this a definite, repeatable
experiment which disproves that mass occasions gravity?
By null gravity you mean where- within the crust, between surfaces?
Or at the central point of a sphere?
Gravity exists along the outer and inner surfaces, but in the middle
diminishes very much. At one point, there should be a strata of no
gravity. Then further inwards, it picks up again.
Below you talk about gravity effects along the inner shell. The nner
shell also has gravity effects which are induced just below the
surface, although not as strongly as along the outer surface. The
frequency of light particles and soft particles within the cavity
penetrate the inner shell and help to create the negatively charged,
gravity-inducing radiation along the inner surface, too.
Without studying my latest program data, you
Next time I'm down ther, I'll measure.
# ; ^ )
You have the concept, the rest it details.
Do let me know what you think.
Dean
Even if there was such a change or incomplete penetration of