Cater Gravity'Soft particles questions not
answered
Dean... I sent you the following with some QUESTIONS (further
down) on August 11th. You haven't answered them yet. Please do. -
Dick
···
Dean just replied to Scott...
So after I send this, I will
unsubscribe you
The above was a surprise. After reading
all the recent disagreeing (and partly insulting) remarks passing
both ways between Dean and Scott, I suspected Scott would soon
quit the list. I'm probably next to be bounced.
Some of Scott's past emails relying on
scientific FORMULAS went over my head. Math (with formulas) was one
of my weaknesses in school. But I found Scott's more recent emails
and arguments about GRAVITY more understandable and making more
sense. If Scott had been kinder with his accompanying remarks about
Dean in Dean's "living room," it might have remained a
combative, but friendly "discussion." But recently Dean has
also made several personally unkind remarks to Scott. Sad.
Dean, as you recall from earlier
comments, I do not think Earth's shell (and hollow cavities) would
necessarily collapse inward if Cater's Gravity notions contain
errors. Both you and Scott have given lip service to the
CENTRIFUGAL FORCE generated from Earth's spin, but then usually
dismissed it as of minor importance.
Within the great hollow, why wouldn't
the gigantic outward centrifugal spinning "motion," thrust
up against the inner shell, prevent the shell from imploding? And
outside the shell, what prevents the outside centrifugal force from
throwing into outer space everything loose on the surface and in the
atmosphere, except for a countering gravitational pull from
the crust (or somewhere deep within the crust)?
Dean, from every post explaining
Cater's Gravity ideas and supporting remarks from you, both Cater and
you seem convinced Earth's gravity is solely the result of
"gravity inducing effects" in the crust by changed
"frequencies" of penetrating "soft
particles." I take "frequency" to mean changing
rates of "vibration." And most of that strong gravity
"effect" seems proposed to reside in the first 50 miles
depth from the surface.
Apparently, it seems Earth's crust (and
mass) possesses no "force of gravity" of its own.
Apparently NOTHING within that crust can generate a "force of
gravity" or "electrostatic gravity effects" on its
own.
Soft particles from the Sun seem
responsible for all of Earth's gravity and apparently just about
other phenomena including Light, Heat and Life itself, recalling your
past remarks.
Dean, if Earth gets its volumes of
"magical" soft particles radiated from the Sun, from
WHERE does the Sun receive its needed volumes of soft particles?
From soft particle radiations from another distant (and perhaps
undetected) great Sun? (Surely you cannot contend that our Sun is
unique, not receiving charged radiation from a greater Sun, but able
to generate all the "soft particles" needed for itself and
its solar system satellites.)
Have Cater or you answered the
preceding questions to your own satisfaction? I think Scott was
recently asking similar questions about WHERE does our Sun get its
gravity effects and are they only effects in the upper surface of the
Sun. Wish he had gotten around to asking that earlier. It doesn't
necessarily validate Newton's ideas about MASS, but it does question
the validity of Cater's theory. Or does it?
- Dick