What specifically interests me about Cater's presentation on the tides is the idea that gravity does not have unlimited penetration through the Earth, in other terms, that gravity is not occasioned by the density of mass. Obviously, there is mass thorughout the Earth's shell and, if gravity does not penetrate, then it cannot be caused by mass.
Anyway, the idea is that if gravity were penetrating and synomamous with the existence of mass, one would be hard-pressed to establish the HET, as the shell of the Earth would have a tendency to collapse inward upon itself. Or else the cavity would hgave to be so small as to practically preclude the existence of any inner sun.
This is why I am interested in studying the nature of tides- the concept of gravity which one accepts either makes or breaks the HET. I really am interested in chatting of the cause and nature of tides and gravity. I know that Scott has some ideas, too, which we should all take a look at.
Here are some of the comments which Cater makes which are of interest:
One of the most extraordinary examples of irrationalism in the history of orthodox physics is the standard explanation of tides. In this case, the discrepancy between reality and orthodox speculation is so colossal it is one of the great enigmas in the history of human thought, that it has not been challenged since the time of Newton. The origin of the difficulty is an obvious flaw in the Newtonian concept of gravitation. It is the idea that gravity effects have unlimited penetration. In other words, there is no attenuation of gravity effects other than that due to the inverse square law as it passes through matter. This is an outrageous violation of the law of conservation of energy.
...
It is now apparent that the idea of unlimited gravity penetration is not valid. This means that the surface gravity effects of the Moon penetrate the Earth for only very limited distances. Therefore, the total acceleration that the surface gravity of the moon imparts to the Earth, as a whole, is very small compared to the acceleration force exerted on an object at the Earth's surface, such as a body of water facing the moon. This means the water, not being fixed to the Earth, is free to move across the surface by means of the Moon's gravitational influence. The difference in gravitational accelerations is so great that the acceleration given a body at the surface follows very closely the inverse square law, since the acceleration given the Earth as a whole can be disregarded.
...
The analysis of tides presented above forms the basis for proving that the surface gravity of the Moon is greater than that on the sun. Since the sun and the Moon have the same apparent diameters, viewed from the Earth, tidal
effects produced by them are directly proportional to their surface gravities. ... gravitational effects vary inversely as the square of the distance away. Their [ the Sun and the Moon ] apparent diameters are inversely proportional to the distance; therefore, their apparent surface areas also vary inversely as the square of the distance Since the moon is a greater factor in producing tides, the conclusion that the Moon has a greater surface gravity than the Sun is inescapable! To the orthodox mind this produces insurmountable paradoxes.
The idea presented below that the Moon has more surface gravity than the
Sun and that this is an inescapable fact is pure hogwash! I am sorry to
be so blunt but this idea makes no sense at all. For one thing the Sun
is roughly 400 times further away than the Moon and it has to exert some
type of influence on the Earth to cause it to orbit the Sun. If the Mass
of the Earth is stated as 5.97E+027 grams of weight, then to orbit
the Sun means that at right angles to a straight line vector of force
(mass times acceleration) that the Earth would travel if all forces of
gravity
from the center of its orbit disappeared, a force would have to be
exerted. If one turned off the gravity from the Sun like a light switch
you would be left with our planet travelling at 18.5 miles per second in
a straight line which would be according to the laws of inertia. Now
before the Earth had travelled any further along this course lets
calculate the amount of force needed to bend the flight path or vector of
motion necessary in order to once again orbit the Sun as it had been.
One proof that the Sun must exert a higher surface gravity than the Moon
is by calculating this force which is surely greater than the force the
Moon exerts on spacecraft that have orbited the Moon.
Another proof is that according to Kepler's third law of
planetary motion the period of orbit is proportional to the mean radius
of the orbit
of the planet to the 3/2 power. Now if we had the ability to magically
reduce the mass of the Sun, our planet would decrease velocity even
though it would be orbiting at the same radius it had been from the Sun.
The only difference is that the lesser mass of the Sun would cause the
orbit to be slower. The reason for this is obvious if you consider this
question a moment. Since the mass of the Earth had not changed, the mass
product of force between the two bodies would lessen with the inverse
square value remaining the same. Since there is less mass in this
Sun the orbital velocity of the Earth would have to decrease for the
lessened mass product from the sun to bend the Earth's course in the same
orbital shape we have now. A perfect example of this is for two
projectiles of equal mass to be propelled at two different velocities.
In order to
bend the path of the faster projectile so that it follows a given arc, a
lateral force must be applied at right angles to that line of force.
Since the
slower projectile has less force ( F = ma ) even though having an equal
mass, a lesser force is needed to maintain the same exact given arc that
the faster projectile is moving along.
Now the final crux of my argument is very telling. If the Moon
had an equal (let alone greater surface) gravity compared to the Sun,
what would we see? Moving toward the Sun makes the orbit faster
according to Kepler's third law of planetary motion. If an object moves
too
slowly at any orbital radius, we can expect that it will fall into the
gravity well of the primary it is orbiting. Mercury is a case in point.
It is very
much closer to the Sun than the Earth is and to offset the greater
gravitational force of the Sun it must orbit at an average of roughly 27
miles per
second compared to the Earth's 18.5. (the Mercury figure is from memory
and might be a little off).
The final nail in the coffin on the idea that the Moon has more
surface gravity than the Sun is the orbital velocity of the moon
spacecrafts from the center of the Moon. It takes a couple hours to have
such vehicles make one trip around the Moon. This is an unequal
comparison though. The Moon being so much smaller than the Sun means that
we must compensate by determining the drop rate above the moon at a
comparative distance above the Sun's surface. Since the radius of the
Sun is 432,500 miles across, we will add a little bit and compare the two
bodies gravitational performance at 500,000 miles. For the Moon, that
would be twice as far away in rough terms as it is from the Earth. This
gravity is a very feeble amount but to emphasis the point, if the surface
gravity of the Moon was equal to that of the Sun, then an object that was
93,000,000 miles away from the Sun would have to orbit it at 18.5 miles
per second. I figured out that a spacecraft orbiting the Moon surface at
an altitude of 70 miles and assuming an orbital period of 2 hours (or
whatever is correct) would mean that the vehicle was orbiting at roughly
a mile per second or 3600 miles per hour. If this time was wrong and it
only took the spacecraft an hour to orbit the Moon, then the velocity
would be 7200 miles per hour. Use the geosynchronous orbit formula and
solve for the low earth orbit velocity of an object in its orbit. Have
we not heard that the orbital velocity of the space shuttle is about
17,000 miles per hour. There can be no question about this. I have shown
that the velocity of an orbiting satellite must be directly proportional
to the gravitational force of the planet being orbited.
It is not as Mr. Cater states the apparent diameter which must be
inversely squared with distance but the mass product. Mr. Cater
apparently has not seen fit to consider all the facts. The centrifugal
force of the Earth orbit around the Sun is by and large the reason that
the
tides effected by the Sun are so much weaker than that of the Moon. The
Earth being at the hub of the Moon's orbit does not have any centrifugal
force working against the Moon's gravitational force to diminish the
Moon's tidal effect.
I had been of a mind to buy Mr. Cater's book but if he espouses
things like the Sun and the Moon having equal surface gravities based on
their comparative perspective size which is suggested by the fact that
the Moon perfectly eclipses the Sun, I don't believe I can justify the
expense of his book.
Scott
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:33:02 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected]
writes:
Dean wrote:
Leslee,
What specifically interests me about Cater's presentation on the tides is
the idea that gravity does not have unlimited penetration through the
Earth, in other terms, that gravity is not occasioned by the density of
mass. Obviously, there is mass thorughout the Earth's shell and, if
gravity does not penetrate, then it cannot be caused by mass.
Anyway, the idea is that if gravity were penetrating and synomamous with
the existence of mass, one would be hard-pressed to establish the HET, as
the shell of the Earth would have a tendency to collapse inward upon
itself. Or else the cavity would hgave to be so small as to practically
preclude the existence of any inner sun.
This is why I am interested in studying the nature of tides- the concept
of gravity which one accepts either makes or breaks the HET. I really am
interested in chatting of the cause and nature of tides and gravity. I
know that Scott has some ideas, too, which we should all take a look at.
Here are some of the comments which Cater makes which are of interest:
One of the most extraordinary examples of irrationalism in the history of
orthodox physics is the standard explanation of tides. In this case, the
discrepancy between reality and orthodox speculation is so colossal it is
one of the great enigmas in the history of human thought, that it has not
been challenged since the time of Newton. The origin of the difficulty is
an obvious flaw in the Newtonian concept of gravitation. It is the idea
that gravity effects have unlimited penetration. In other words, there is
no attenuation of gravity effects other than that due to the inverse
square law as it passes through matter. This is an outrageous violation
of the law of conservation of energy.
...
It is now apparent that the idea of unlimited gravity penetration is not
valid. This means that the surface gravity effects of the Moon penetrate
the Earth for only very limited distances. Therefore, the total
acceleration that the surface gravity of the moon imparts to the Earth,
as a whole, is very small compared to the acceleration force exerted on
an object at the Earth’s surface, such as a body of water facing the
moon. This means the water, not being fixed to the Earth, is free to move
across the surface by means of the Moon’s gravitational influence. The
difference in gravitational accelerations is so great that the
acceleration given a body at the surface follows very closely the inverse
square law, since the acceleration given the Earth as a whole can be
disregarded.
...
The analysis of tides presented above forms the basis for proving that
the surface gravity of the Moon is greater than that on the sun. Since
the sun and the Moon have the same apparent diameters, viewed from the
Earth, tidal
effects produced by them are directly proportional to their surface
gravities. ... gravitational effects vary inversely as the square of the
distance away. Their [ the Sun and the Moon ] apparent diameters are
inversely proportional to the distance; therefore, their apparent surface
areas also vary inversely as the square of the distance Since the moon is
a greater factor in producing tides, the conclusion that the Moon has a
greater surface gravity than the Sun is inescapable! To the orthodox mind
this produces insurmountable paradoxes.
Would you be a little patient before you jump to this conclusion. I understand why you get this reaction, but you do not have the full context of why Cater says this. This is the danger of taking small segments out of a book like "The Ultimate Reality" . You can almost "prove" anything to be garbage if you take out parts and change the context.
I will try to get back to this, hopefully tomorrow. OK
What if the gravity which holds the Earth in orbit is being generated by the Earth? It is the Earth which reaches across the distance and hugs onto the Sun. Gravity is electrical in the sense that it radiates and passes through an object, but only exercises a frontal attraction, while it does not exercise and attraction from behind. Cater explains why this is so in chapter 12- I won't get into it now.
It is easy to say that the Sun is holding the planets in orbit due to its mass, but this idea doesn't seem to hold in other circumstances. Cater disarms us of the idea that gravity is due to the density of mass by the observation that " large bodies of water are accelerated relative to the Earth to produce tides, such bodies are given different accelerations than the Earth as a whole." If gravity were due to the density of mass, its effects would be consistent at least through the upper portion of the surface of the planet.
And how about the trajectory of solar flares? They don't obey newtonian principles as they fall back down to the sun:
" The behavior of matter ejected by explosions on the Sun's surface defies all of the popular laws of gravity. This matter occasionally rises to altitudes of several hundred thousand miles. It does not follow a trajectory in descending as it is supposed to. Also, its speed of descent does not follow the law of falling bodies at any time. In fact, the velocity of fall is much lower than expected. One of the reasons is the
low surface gravity of the Sun. Another reason is the variable quantity of negative charges which impregnate these masses."
Low surface gravity of the sun could be due to low emissions of the radiation which induces gravity, in spite of the Sun's large size.
And clouds don't fall. They are comprised of heavy, massive loads of water. They float for days and weeks at a time. There is no proof that they are fluxing microscopically between droplet and vapor form, such that some expansion keeps lifting them up before they fall. In cold environments, I couldn't imagine water fluxing microscopically between water and vapor. In my kitchen the idea might work because I boil water.
Scott wrote:
For one thing the Sun is roughly 400 times further away than the Moon and it has to exert some type of influence on the Earth to cause it to orbit the Sun.
Cater:
" The analysis of tides presented above forms the basis for proving that the surface gravity of the Moon is greater than that on the sun. Since the sun and the Moon have the same apparent diameters, viewed from the Earth, tidal
effects produced by them are directly proportional to their surface gravities. ... gravitational effects vary inversely as the square of the distance away. Their [ the Sun and the Moon ] apparent diameters are inversely proportional to the distance; therefore, their apparent surface areas also vary inversely as the square of the distance Since the moon is a greater factor in producing tides, the conclusion that the Moon has a greater surface gravity than the Sun is inescapable! To the orthodox mind this produces insurmountable paradoxes."
Scott-
At this point I see that Frode has asked me to hold on and be a little patient. We will see what he says tomorrow. I think that the " context " which he mentioned might have to do with the idea of the gravity which we see at work being generated by the planetary globes themselves.
I am happy that we are finally discussing this matter to the hilt. I think that one reason why it hasn't elecited much discussion among us is that you all have pre-judged Cater without comprehending his scheme.
I also think that your presentation on tides should be scrutinized on the list, and I am not saying this to be diplomatic. If we are going to talk about a hollow configuration for our planet, then we should have a strong understanding of how gravity works and fits in, unless we just wnat to be sentimental believers. And tides have a lot to say about gravity.
So if any of you have been holding back on the thinking and analysis because of time constraints and such, now might be a good moment to jump in and get wise about this thread.
I hope we get to hear from Hagar, I mean Frode, tomorrow.
If the Mass of the Earth is stated as 5.97E+027 grams of weight, then to orbit
the Sun means that at right angles to a straight line vector of force (mass times acceleration) that the Earth would travel if all forces of gravity
from the center of its orbit disappeared, a force would have to be exerted. If one turned off the gravity from the Sun like a light switch you would be left with our planet travelling at 18.5 miles per second in a straight line which would be according to the laws of inertia. Now before the Earth had travelled any further along this course lets calculate the amount of force needed to bend the flight path or vector of motion necessary in order to once again orbit the Sun as it had been. One proof that the Sun must exert a higher surface gravity than the Moon is by calculating this force which is surely greater than the force the Moon exerts on spacecraft that have orbited the Moon.
Another proof is that according to Kepler's third law of planetary motion the period of orbit is proportional to the mean radius of the orbit
of the planet to the 3/2 power. Now if we had the ability to magically reduce the mass of the Sun, our planet would decrease velocity even
though it would be orbiting at the same radius it had been from the Sun. The only difference is that the lesser mass of the Sun would cause the
orbit to be slower. The reason for this is obvious if you consider this question a moment. Since the mass of the Earth had not changed, the mass product of force between the two bodies would lessen with the inverse square value remaining the same. Since there is less mass in this
Sun the orbital velocity of the Earth would have to decrease for the lessened mass product from the sun to bend the Earth's course in the same
orbital shape we have now. A perfect example of this is for two projectiles of equal mass to be propelled at two different velocities. In order to
bend the path of the faster projectile so that it follows a given arc, a lateral force must be applied at right angles to that line of force. Since the
slower projectile has less force ( F = ma ) even though having an equal mass, a lesser force is needed to maintain the same exact given arc that
the faster projectile is moving along.
Now the final crux of my argument is very telling. If the Moon had an equal (let alone greater surface) gravity compared to the Sun, what would we see? Moving toward the Sun makes the orbit faster according to Kepler's third law of planetary motion. If an object moves too
slowly at any orbital radius, we can expect that it will fall into the gravity well of the primary it is orbiting. Mercury is a case in point. It is very
much closer to the Sun than the Earth is and to offset the greater gravitational force of the Sun it must orbit at an average of roughly 27 miles per
second compared to the Earth's 18.5. (the Mercury figure is from memory and might be a little off).
The final nail in the coffin on the idea that the Moon has more surface gravity than the Sun is the orbital velocity of the moon spacecrafts from the center of the Moon. It takes a couple hours to have such vehicles make one trip around the Moon. This is an unequal comparison though. The Moon being so much smaller than the Sun means that we must compensate by determining the drop rate above the moon at a comparative distance above the Sun's surface. Since the radius of the Sun is 432,500 miles across, we will add a little bit and compare the two bodies gravitational performance at 500,000 miles. For the Moon, that would be twice as far away in rough terms as it is from the Earth. This gravity is a very feeble amount but to emphasis the point, if the surface gravity of the Moon was equal to that of the Sun, then an object that was 93,000,000 miles away from the Sun would have to orbit it at 18.5 miles per second. I figured out that a spacecraft orbiting the Moon surface at an altitude of 70 miles and assuming an orbital period of 2 hours (or whatever is correct) would mean that the vehicle was orbiting at roughly
a mile per second or 3600 miles per hour. If this time was wrong and it only took the spacecraft an hour to orbit the Moon, then the velocity would be 7200 miles per hour. Use the geosynchronous orbit formula and solve for the low earth orbit velocity of an object in its orbit. Have we not heard that the orbital velocity of the space shuttle is about 17,000 miles per hour. There can be no question about this. I have shown that the velocity of an orbiting satellite must be directly proportional to the gravitational force of the planet being orbited.
It is not as Mr. Cater states the apparent diameter which must be inversely squared with distance but the mass product. Mr. Cater apparently has not seen fit to consider all the facts. The centrifugal force of the Earth orbit around the Sun is by and large the reason that the
tides effected by the Sun are so much weaker than that of the Moon. The Earth being at the hub of the Moon's orbit does not have any centrifugal force working against the Moon's gravitational force to diminish the Moon's tidal effect.
I had been of a mind to buy Mr. Cater's book but if he espouses things like the Sun and the Moon having equal surface gravities based on their comparative perspective size which is suggested by the fact that the Moon perfectly eclipses the Sun, I don't believe I can justify the expense of his book.
Scott
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:33:02 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:
I think everything I have stated stands by itself and I would
like to see what is wrong about the things that I have said. Besides, it
makes little sense to suggest that this Cater fellow is right when the
only way to get the context right in what he is communicating is by
reading the whole book. That is the dilemma of trying to convince people
that an idea that sounds at least so superficially crazy is correct. It
is almost as if one is laying out a trap to snare people in by providing
incomplete details.
From what little I have read it seems to me that there could be
no chance that his ideas are right. I recently spoke out in example to
this about the phenomena called black holes. They have way more
gravitational force than they did when they were red or blue giant stars,
and yet is there any possible dispute that the area that they encompass
after their transition into being a black hole, is tremendously smaller
and that their density has in fact become far more dense by many
magnitudes? Is it also not reasonable to declare that the very mass they
possessed after being converted into a black hole is less and certainly
not more than the mass they had before this change? I consider that
density would have to be un attenuated when it comes to gravitational
"radiation" and it must be that way otherwise how could one explain the
tremendous increase in gravitational force of a newly converted black
hole? Suggesting that surface area is what makes for the difference in
surface gravity would thus make no sense for a black hole if we are to
believe that gravity radiation is attenuated by density. It seems to me
that these concepts have
dug themselves their own hole with no ladder in sight.
Scott makes further comments in between Dean's comments in red.
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:00:37 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected]
writes:
Dean wrote:
Scott,
What if the gravity which holds the Earth in orbit is being generated by
the Earth? It is the Earth which reaches across the distance and hugs
onto the Sun. Gravity is electrical in the sense that it radiates and
passes through an object, but only exercises a frontal attraction, while
it does not exercise an attraction from behind. Cater explains why this
is so in chapter 12- I won't get into it now.
If you are suggesting that gravity is electromagnetic in some form or
another that may be one thing. In the Churchward books, gravity was
described by the ancients as the cold magnetic force. Just exactly what
is implied by that description, I cannot tell. If the Earth is exerting
this type of "hug" on other heavenly bodies, and as Cater's claim is that
the surface of the Moon has greater gravity and effect on the Earth
oceans tides, then why wouldn't the Earth choose to "hug" the
gravitationally more potent Moon and make it the center of its orbit?
After all if it is claimed that the Moon has a greater gravitational
influence on the Earth's tides due to a greater surface gravity, then how
could we be induced to orbit the Sun. Again, and at least with the level
of logic that you have presented, this argument that the Earth hugs the
Sun makes no sense.
It is easy to say that the Sun is holding the planets in orbit due to its
mass, but this idea doesn't seem to hold in other circumstances. Cater
disarms us of the idea that gravity is due to the density of mass by the
observation that " large bodies of water are accelerated relative to the
Earth to produce tides, such bodies are given different accelerations
than the Earth as a whole." If gravity were due to the density of mass,
its effects would be consistent at least through the upper portion of the
surface of the planet.
If the gravitational force of the Earth is what holds our planet in our
orbit of the Sun, then what reason would there be for what has been
coined as Solar tides. If this is the case, why would the tides peak at
all or where they do just prior to their perfect alignment with the Sun?
And how about the trajectory of solar flares? They don't obey Newtonian
principles as they fall back down to the sun:
I don't buy this argument and if it is a case of observation then we
should all make a study of the solar flares but as a superficial analysis
of this situation there may be very good reasons why the solar flares do
not respond as one expects in a typical law of falling bodies manner. We
should discuss just what forces propel the flares above the surface of
the Sun. Don't make the mistake of suggesting that there is so
little gravity on the Sun's surface because of what is visually seen.
For one thing,
perhaps the very expanding superheated gas in a state of plasma has the
effect of levitating or lifting the flares above the surface and that it
settles downward in a reduced speed owing this sort of levitation to the
density of gases that it is on top of.
I read somewhere that the temperature at the Sun's surface was very hot
but ironically sound apparently has a medium quite a distance away from
the Sun. I have read that there is enormous sound involved and that
sound might have something to so with the temperature of various regions.
It was stated that the temperature of areas 1,000,000 miles from the
Sun's surface actually is about 1,000,000 degrees in temperature. Now it
seems to me that if I am speaking prematurely by having not read Mr.
Cater's book, unless he has likewise considered all of these factors he
may have written the book prematurely without considering all of these
conditions unique to the Sun.
Another key point should be made. It is suggested that the
Keplerian laws of planetary motion while true for the solar system are
not true went it comes the rotation and orbiting characteristics of
spiral galaxies out in interstellar space. This is no repudiation of the
Keplerian law because in my opinion the motion of stars in galactic
spiral arms is different for a very specific reason. That is because the
stars
that form the spiral arms themselves act as gravitational magnets which
has the effect of pulling the stars further out in the spiral arms moving
faster than they would under normal Keplerian orbital rules. It would be
a little like the ice skating figures who form a line and no matter how
fast the line is rotating, the line remains straight all the way to last
skater in the line. This might be considered against the law of angular
momentum but no one would suggest such a thing since they recognize the
advantage of the skaters benefiting from each successive skater closer
into the center of the hub. Now regardless of whether the reason why the
spiral arms act unlike how Keplerian laws dictate they ought to, it is
not reason enough to suggest that Kepler was wrong. He was quite
obviously correct at least in our sparsely filled solar system.
" The behavior of matter ejected by explosions on the Sun's surface
defies all of the popular laws of gravity. This matter occasionally rises
to altitudes of several hundred thousand miles. It does not follow a
trajectory in descending as it is supposed to. Also, its speed of descent
does not follow the law of falling bodies at any time. In fact, the
velocity of fall is much lower than expected. One of the reasons is the
low surface gravity of the Sun. Another reason is the variable quantity
of negative charges which impregnate these masses."
Low surface gravity of the sun could be due to low emissions of the
radiation which induces gravity, in spite of the Sun's large size.
And clouds don't fall. They are comprised of heavy, massive loads of
water. They float for days and weeks at a time. There is no proof that
they are fluxing microscopically between droplet and vapor form, such
that some expansion keeps lifting them up before they fall. In cold
environments, I couldn't imagine water fluxing microscopically between
water and vapor. In my kitchen the idea might work because I boil water.
Cater:
" The analysis of tides presented above forms the basis for proving that
the surface gravity of the Moon is greater than that on the sun. Since
the sun and the Moon have the same apparent diameters, viewed from the
Earth, tidal effects produced by them are directly proportional to their
surface gravities. ... gravitational effects vary inversely as the square
of the distance away. Their [ the Sun and the Moon ] apparent diameters
are inversely proportional to the distance; therefore, their apparent
surface areas also vary inversely as the square of the distance Since the
moon is a greater factor in producing tides, the conclusion that the Moon
has a greater surface gravity than the Sun is inescapable! To the
orthodox mind this produces insurmountable paradoxes."
Scott-
At this point I see that Frode has asked me to hold on and be a little
patient. We will see what he says tomorrow. I think that the " context "
which he mentioned might have to do with the idea of the gravity which we
see at work being generated by the planetary globes themselves.
I am happy that we are finally discussing this matter to the hilt. I
think that one reason why it hasn't elicited much discussion among us is
that you all have prejudged Cater without comprehending his scheme.
I also think that your presentation on tides should be scrutinized on
the list, and I am not saying this to be diplomatic. If we are going
to talk about a hollow configuration for our planet, then we should have
a strong understanding of how gravity works and fits in, unless we just
want to be sentimental believers. And tides have a lot to say about
gravity.
If I end up being right about the Solar tides and why it is possible for
a greater force
to be responsible for a lesser proportion of tidal effect, then, Cater's
attenuation of gravity seems to be thoroughly rebuked. I can state with
high confidence that the uneven behavior of tides on the far side of the
planet is NOT a sign of gravity being attenuated by the mass that it
passes through.
Also, why haven't you tackled the question of the activity and enormous
gravitational
forces inherent in a black hole? It surely is not the attracted object
that vastly increases its gravitational well that causes it to be drawn
permanently within the bounds of a black holes event horizon. If the Sun
does not exert anything but the weak gravitational force that you
suggest, how could it then become the source of such an ultimate gravity
well?
If Mr. Cater is to convince anyone of his theories it must be that all of
the scientific concerns and objections have been accounted for and
explained. Any other outcome means that the theory presented does not
cut the mustard. I used to be quite taken with the gravitational
theories of Al Snyder which first came to my attention in Rodney Cluffs
World Top Secret book on the hollow earth. I found that
not only were his static equations inadequate in explaining everything in
nature, but his formula didn't jive correctly with the geosynchronous
orbit formula no matter how either of us (Rod and I) tried to make it
work.
I also don't understand another statement that I have heard. Some have
suggested that with Newtonian mass formulas, the planet earth would crush
any hollow sections
beneath our feet. In other words, it would be impossible for there to
have a hollow section of the Earth in the interior of the planet. I
think this is a somewhat reckless thing to say. After all, no one on
current record has descended further down into the crust than at most 8
or 10 miles. This is only partially through the width of the crust. How
can one say with any confidence what the density of the shell structure
of the Earth would be and what forces it would have to resist in
maintaining a hollow core?
So if any of you have been holding back on the thinking and analysis
because of time constraints and such, now might be a good moment to jump
in and get wise about this thread.
I hope we get to hear from Hagar, I mean Frode, tomorrow.
If the Mass of the Earth is stated as 5.97E+027 grams of weight, then
to orbit
the Sun means that at right angles to a straight line vector of force
(mass times acceleration) that the Earth would travel if all forces of
gravity from the center of its orbit disappeared, a force would have to
be exerted. If one turned off the gravity from the Sun like a light
switch you would be left with our planet travelling at 18.5 miles per
second in a straight line which would be according to the laws of
inertia. Now before the Earth had travelled any further along this
course lets calculate the amount of force needed to bend the flight path
or vector of motion necessary in order to once again orbit the Sun as it
had been. One proof that the Sun must exert a higher surface gravity
than the Moon is by calculating this force which is surely greater than
the force the Moon exerts on spacecraft that have orbited the Moon.
Another proof is that according to Kepler's third law of
planetary motion the period of orbit is proportional to the mean radius
of the orbit of the planet to the 3/2 power. Now if we had the ability to
magically reduce the mass of the Sun, our planet would decrease velocity
even though it would be orbiting at the same radius it had been from the
Sun. The only difference is that the lesser mass of the Sun would cause
the orbit to be slower. The reason for this is obvious if you consider
this question a moment. Since the mass of the Earth had not changed, the
mass product of force between the two bodies would lessen with the
inverse square value remaining the same. Since there is less mass in
this Sun the orbital velocity of the Earth would have to decrease for the
lessened mass product from the sun to bend the Earth's course in the same
orbital shape we have now. A perfect example of this is for two
projectiles of equal mass to be propelled at two different velocities.
In order to bend the path of the faster projectile so that it follows a
given arc, a lateral force must be applied at right angles to that line
of force. Since the slower projectile has less force ( F = ma ) even
though having an equal mass, a lesser force is needed to maintain the
same exact given arc that the faster projectile is moving along.
Now the final crux of my argument is very telling. If the Moon
had an equal (let alone greater surface) gravity compared to the Sun,
what would we see? Moving toward the Sun makes the orbit faster
according to Kepler's third law of planetary motion. If an object moves
too slowly at any orbital radius, we can expect that it will fall into
the gravity well of the primary it is orbiting. Mercury is a case in
point. It is very much closer to the Sun than the Earth is and to offset
the greater gravitational force of the Sun it must orbit at an average of
roughly 27 miles per second compared to the Earth's 18.5. (the Mercury
figure is from memory and might be a little off).
The final nail in the coffin on the idea that the Moon has more
surface gravity than the Sun is the orbital velocity of the moon
spacecrafts from the center of the Moon. It takes a couple hours to have
such vehicles make one trip around the Moon. This is an unequal
comparison though. The Moon being so much smaller than the Sun means that
we must compensate by determining the drop rate above the moon at a
comparative distance above the Sun's surface. Since the radius of the
Sun is 432,500 miles across, we will add a little bit and compare the two
bodies gravitational performance at 500,000 miles. For the Moon, that
would be twice as far away in rough terms as it is from the Earth. This
gravity is a very feeble amount but to emphasis the point, if the surface
gravity of the Moon was equal to that of the Sun, then an object that was
93,000,000 miles away from the Sun would have to orbit it at 18.5 miles
per second. I figured out that a spacecraft orbiting the Moon surface at
an altitude of 70 miles and assuming an orbital period of 2 hours (or
whatever is correct) would mean that the vehicle was orbiting at roughly
a mile per second or 3600 miles per hour. If this time was wrong and it
only took the spacecraft an hour to orbit the Moon, then the velocity
would be 7200 miles per hour. Use the geosynchronous orbit formula and
solve for the low earth orbit velocity of an object in its orbit. Have
we not heard that the orbital velocity of the space shuttle is about
17,000 miles per hour. There can be no question about this. I have shown
that the velocity of an orbiting satellite must be directly proportional
to the gravitational force of the planet being orbited.
It is not as Mr. Cater states the apparent diameter which must be
inversely squared with distance but the mass product. Mr. Cater
apparently has not seen fit to consider all the facts. The centrifugal
force of the Earth orbit around the Sun is by and large the reason that
the
tides effected by the Sun are so much weaker than that of the Moon. The
Earth being at the hub of the Moon's orbit does not have any centrifugal
force working against the Moon's gravitational force to diminish the
Moon's tidal effect.
I had been of a mind to buy Mr. Cater's book but if he espouses
things like the Sun and the Moon having equal surface gravities based on
their comparative perspective size which is suggested by the fact that
the Moon perfectly eclipses the Sun, I don't believe I can justify the
expense of his book.
Scott
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:33:02 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected]
writes:
The following is from Mike Mott's book. It looks as if the satellite might
have grabbed a photo of the opening, and that it isbetween N. Canada and
Siberia.
DD
Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message: clip_image001.jpg (image/jpeg)
This is from the Hidden Neighbors section of Mike Mott's book:
" Similarly the sorcerer Merlin, himself said to be the half-human result of
the union of an underworld being and a mortal woman, covered Uther Pendragon
with the likeness of his enemy Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall, so that he might
impregnate his rival's wife Ygraine and produce the child which would become
Arthur, the mythical king of Britain. Uther wanted pleasure; Merlin had an
agenda of his own. It's meaningful that Merlin's father was said to have
been an incubus, or a demon/underworld entity capable of having intercourse
with human women and impregnating them. Merlin had to bring together the
desired genetic partners, and this seems to have been simply underworld
manipulation of human history and politics as usual, as far as subterranean
interference in human affairs go."
This theme of manipulation of the surfce world is not something new, thank
you Mike Mott. 400,000 children disappear from North America each year. Even
counting runaway and kids double-counted, this means that every three years
or so a population a little over 300 million loses a million kids. In all of
the Vietnam War, the USA only lost ( only? ) 60,000 soldiers. So the amount
missing is incredible.
The Bhagavad Gita was spoken to Arjuna on a battlefield. The ensuing battle,
which Arjuna had tried to aviod, is said by the Hindus to have wiped out the
administrative/military population of the planet, ( at least of the
surface ). It was certainly manipulated by underworld beings, if not from
the inner shell of this planet, then from what are described in the Vedic
literature as the lower planetary systems. Here is a discription of
Duryodhana's manipulation, he was the enemy of Arjuna and Arjuna's brothers,
jointly known as the Pandavas:
Here is an account from the Mahabharat about the aduction of Durydhana:
" Although sexual attraction seems to play a role in both modern and Vedic
abduction stories, there may also be other motivating factors. The abduction
of King Duryodhana in the Mahabharata is an example in which the underlying
motives involved politics and military strategy.
King Duryodhana once had an encounter with some Gandharvas, who had cordoned
off an area around a lake for recreational purposes and had blocked
Duryodhana's army from entering. When Duryodhana tried to enter anyway, a
fierce battle took place, and he was captured by the Gandharva forces. At
this point, Arjuna, who was staying nearby, used his political connections
with the Ganharvas to free Duryodhana. Arjuna and his brothers had been
driven into exile by Duryodhana, but Arjuna intervened to save him from the
Ganharvas on the grounds that he was a relative and a human being.
Duryodhana was humiliated by being saved by a person he had scorned and
mistreated as an enemy, and he decided to give up everything and fast unto
death. However, it seems that some other parties had long-standing plans for
Duryodhana, and they weren't at all pleased by this turn of events:
' Thereupon the Daityas and Danavas, hearing of his decision, the gruesome
denizens of the nether world who had been defeated by the gods, now, in the
knowledge that Duryodhana would wreak their party, performed a sacrificial
rite in order to summon him.'
With mantras, the Danavas summoned a ' wonderous woman with a gaping mouth,'
and asked her to fetch Duryodhana. This woman was a Kritya, a type of
demoniac being, and she was able to transport the king by mystical travel:
' Kritya gave her promise and went forth and in a twinkling of the eye went
to King Duryodhana. She took the king and entered the nether world and a
little while afterward handed him over to the Danavas.'
[ Moderator's Note: By being referred to as residents of the " nether
world," Sadaputa Dasa, the narrator, is not referring to the hollow portion
of the Earth but rather, planetary systems below the Earth or possibly
worlds in the inner shell. ]
The " Nether World " is not exactly the region beneath the surface of the
Earth. According to the Vedic literature, there are three regions known as
Svarga, or heaven. These are delineated in relation to the ecliptic, or the
orbital path of the Sun against the background of fixed stars. There is
Divya-svarga, (divine heaven ), the region of the heavens to the north of
the ecliptic. Bhauma-svarga ( earthly heaven ), in roughly the plane of the
ecliptic;and Bila-svarga ( subterranean heaven ), to the south of the
ecliptic. The Bhauma-svarga is sometimes referred to as Bhu-mandala, and it
is the " flat Earth " mentioned previously ( see pages 215 - 216 ).
... The nether regions can also be entered by taking the Pitr-Jana path,
which is said in the Vishnu Purana to begin near the constellations Scorpio
and Sagittarius and extend to the South in the direction of the star Agastya
or Canopus. This is described in more detail in Chapter 7 ( page 281 of
Alien ID ).
Once Duryodhana was in the presence of the Danavas, they explained to him
that his presence on Earth was arranged in advance as part of their plan.
His great bodily strength and his near immunity to weapons were arranged by
their manipulations. He therefore shouldn't spoil everything by taking his
life. Danavas and Daityas, taking birth as Earthly heroes, would assist him
in his battle with the Pandavas. The Danavas also pointed out that they
would use mind control to make sure that this battle would have the desired
outcome:
' The other Asuras will take possession of Bhishma, Drona, Kripa and the
others; and possessed by them they will fight your enemies ruthlessly. When
they engage in battle, best of the Kurus, they will give no quarter to
either sons or brothers, parents or relatives, students or kinsmen, the
young or the old. Pitiless, possessed by the Danavas, their inner souls
overwhelmed, they will battle their relations and cast all love far off.
Gleefully, their minds darkened, the tiger-like men, befuddled with
ignorance by a fate set by the Ordainer, will say to one another that - '
you will not escape from me with your life! ' Standing firm in their manly
might in the unleashing of manifold weapons, best of the Kurus, they will
boastfully perpetrate a holocost.'
If this wasn't enough, the Danavas also explained that the hero Karna and
the " sworn Warriors " ( a band of demons ) would slay Arjuna. After
convincing Duryodhana that he would be victorious, the Danavas arranged for
his return:
' The same Kritya brought the strong armed man back when he was dismissed,
to the very spot where he had been fasting unto death. Kritya put the hero
down, saluted him, and when the king had dismised her, vanished then and
there.
After she was gone, King Duryodhana thought that it had all been a dream,
Bharata, and he was left with this thought: I shall vanquish the Pandus in
battle.'
This story from the Mahabharat has a number of features that are seen in UFO
abduction accounts. These include:
A strange being takes Duryodhana bodily to another location, where he has
a meeting with other stange beings.
Mystical or higher-dimensional transport is used.
The strange beings have human form, but look " gruesome." Certainly they
are " aliens."
These beings have been guiding Duryodhana's life from the very beginning.
They designed his body so that he would be impervious to weapons. Thus
they apparently engaged in genetic manipulations, or something similar.
The aliens were planning to manipulate human beings through mind control.
After his interview, Duryodhana returned to the spot where he was taken,
and after settling him down, his captor disappeared.
After the experience, it seemed to be a dream.
There are accounts in the UFO literature which parallel the story of
Duryodhana."
Memmbers: Don't let this type of info just slide by. Get wise and inform
yourselves.
Before we go on with Cater and tides let us take a look at black holes.
I have suggested earlier that black holes does not exist in reality. They have not been observed directly, only assumed to be observed indirectly. I have also claimed that there are better explanations for this observations.
For more than 10 years plasma physicists have had an electrical model of galaxies. It works with real-world physics. The model is able to successfully account for the observed shapes and dynamics of galaxies without recourse to invisible dark matter and central black holes. It explains simply the powerful electric jets seen issuing along the spin axis from the cores of active galaxies. Recent results from mapping the magnetic field of a spiral galaxy confirm the electric model.
On the other hand, cosmologists cannot explain why spiral shapes are so common and they have only ad-hoc explanations for galactic magnetic fields. More recently, inter-galactic magnetic fields have been discovered which is the final straw to break the camel's back. Incredible gravitational models involving invisible "black holes" have had to be invented in a desperate attempt to explain how the attractive force of gravity can result in matter being ejected in a narrow jet at relativistic speeds.
Why do we accept such science fiction as fact when an Electric Universe predicts spiral shapes, magnetic fields and jets? The cosmic magnetic fields simply delineate the electric currents that create, move and light the galaxies.
____________________________________
What do you think? Can you give me some good reasons to why I should reconsider black holes as real. I have more info on plasma interactions vs the existence of black holes if you are interested. But I will not use time on that if you are not genuinely interested in reconsidering your view on black holes. I want a win/win exchange or no exchange at all. I have a lot to learn, and as long as our exchange provide me and you with a wider understanding of reality then it is of value for us both.
Frode
Here is something from Jan Lamprecht on the matte of Newtonian gravity:
Another astronomer wrote a paper in the 1960's where he pointed out that gravity might actually not be valid at galactic distances. For example it has been found that the outer sections of the long arms of spiral galaxies actually move faster than the inner sections. This means that spiral galaxies violate Newtonian gravity.
You bring up some nice and realistic points. I don't personally
buy
into the idea of dark matter either, but I have tended to believe in
black holes.
I am more flexible about this point than you might think. When you
stated
below that black holes have never been observed directly, that is a bit
unfair.
It is not that I have a problem with your reasons for questioning them,
but it
is more of a procedural thing. For instance, when asked the question,
will
man ever develop the technology to enable him to see atoms, the answer at
least from a visual magnification standpoint would have to remain forever
NO!
The reason this is so is that they have calculated that the wavelength of
visible
light is such that it is too wide to capture the dimension and scale of
an atom.
By this reckoning we will never be able to view in the ordinary optical
sense
things that are that small. Now it may be that one might find a way to
alter the
spectrum or translate it into something different that could be displayed
visually.
I cannot say for sure.
This example does illustrate how your statement about viewing the
mythic
"black hole" is not a fair test. In a slightly different way, viewing a
black hole
cannot be done in the same way that one sees things and tests for their
existence
in the normal scientific, observable sense. By its very definition a
black hole
would be impossible to see. All matter that spins inward and beyond the
event
horizon of a black hole disappears from sight forever. Even light cannot
escape
this phenomena once it has entered beyond a given point, so it is neither
possible
or fair to determine that black holes exist by "seeing" them in a
telescope. Such
circumstances call for the flexibility of extrapolation. In other words,
if all light
enters a sphere shaped region never to escape again, then one can
hypothesize that
this is a black hole and be fairly safe in doing so.
I have mused quite a bit about the nature of these objects should
they exist,
but you asked me for reasons to reconsider that they might exist. I
cannot say with
any conviction that I will convince you otherwise because the strength of
my argument
comes from extrapolation and dependence on Newtonian physics which
everyone is
all too happy to question. Based on Newtonian thought, I do have a
reason to speculate
that these kind of objects are possible.
Let us divert for a moment and consider the formula for mass
which is
M = r^2 * g / G. Lets hypothetically take our own planet Earth and
suggest that its
mass remained the same but that we cancelled out the need of the r^2
component in
the numerator by assigning it the value of 1 centimeter squared which is
nothing more
than the identity multiplier in algebra. This represents the entire
compressed mass of
the Earth to only two centimeters in diameter. We have the same mass but
it is contracted
to a phenomenal degree. M = g / G. Since G, the gravitational constant
is a constant,
and M remains unchanged, we only have to assign the value to g that is
equal to the K
value in the original formula which is r^2 * g. K in the mass equation
for the earth is
equal to 63730024 ^2 * 980.665 or 3.982986e+020. This number then
becomes
equivalent to the surface acceleration of the condensed planet Earth
which is only 2
centimeters in diameter ( 1 centimeter radius squared ). Now what I do
is to divide this
number by 2 which is equal to the amount of distance travelled in the
first second
according to the drop rate over time formula of 1/2rateseconds^2. This
number is
just slightly smaller than 1.99e+020. This represents the drop rate or
the distanced travel
at the surface of the 2 diameter planet body at the end of the first
second. Of course this
is a technique that mimics the drop rate of actual falling bodies which
are on the surface
of the Earth in reality. My point though is to carry out the Newtonian
formulas to their
logical conclusion. If these laws hold true then someone elses laws have
to be nullified
or the Newtonian formula for mass itself. In other words, Newton and
Einstien are
mutually exclusive. The only out for Enstein is to time dilate the
acceleration but I don't
care to get into that at this time. Otherwise, they both can't be right
because I did further
calculations that showed me that radius from the center of the 2
centimeter diameter
compressed Earth that equals the drop rate of the speed of light is
roughly 7 kilometers.
This proves one of two things. If the Newtonian formulas are
correct for all mass
bodies regardless of size mass and density, then we have essentially
through extrapolation
proven that the speed of light can be exceeded if enough force is
applied. Perhaps this
might be a hyper gravity drive which has been the rumor of guys like
Robert Lazar working
on supposed alien craft from distant star constellations at area51. On
the other hand we
can assume that Newton was wrong and that gravity and mass are not
associated according
to the formulas which are the common place tools of scientists today.
The idea that I will convince you of something like black holes
is perhaps the wrong
question as we have seen that the proof of such things must be arrived at
through means
that are independent of the typical scientific method, be it
extrapolation or whatever. I
guess my point about the compressed Earth is that it is possible to
contemplate by prediction
the existence of black holes by extrapolating Newtonian mass equations to
the nth degree .
This is all the right I have to convince you that black holes might be a
possibility and because
of it, perhaps we should all be less emphatic in what we claim is or
isn't the truth.
Scott
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:02:16 +0100 Frode <[email protected]> writes:
Scott,
Before we go on with Cater and tides let us take a look at black holes.
I have suggested earlier that black holes does not exist in reality. They
have not been observed directly, only assumed to be observed indirectly.
I have also claimed that there are better explanations for this
observations.
For more than 10 years plasma physicists have had an electrical model of
galaxies. It works with real-world physics. The model is able to
successfully account for the observed shapes and dynamics of galaxies
without recourse to invisible dark matter and central black holes. It
explains simply the powerful electric jets seen issuing along the spin
axis from the cores of active galaxies. Recent results from mapping the
magnetic field of a spiral galaxy confirm the electric model.
On the other hand, cosmologists cannot explain why spiral shapes are so
common and they have only ad-hoc explanations for galactic magnetic
fields. More recently, inter-galactic magnetic fields have been
discovered which is the final straw to break the camel's back. Incredible
gravitational models involving invisible "black holes" have had to be
invented in a desperate attempt to explain how the attractive force of
gravity can result in matter being ejected in a narrow jet at
relativistic speeds.
Why do we accept such science fiction as fact when an Electric Universe
predicts spiral shapes, magnetic fields and jets? The cosmic magnetic
fields simply delineate the electric currents that create, move and light
the galaxies.
____________________________________
What do you think? Can you give me some good reasons to why I should
reconsider black holes as real. I have more info on plasma interactions
vs the existence of black holes if you are interested. But I will not use
time on that if you are not genuinely interested in reconsidering your
view on black holes. I want a win/win exchange or no exchange at all. I
have a lot to learn, and as long as our exchange provide me and you with
a wider understanding of reality then it is of value for us both.
Before we go on with Cater and tides let us take a look at black holes.
I have suggested earlier that black holes does not exist in reality. They have not been observed directly, only assumed to be observed indirectly. I have also claimed that there are better explanations for this observations.
To: Scott
From: Dean
I feel uncomfortable arguing from the standpoint of black hole. It's the fraternity of astronomers and NASA and that whole bunch that tells us about black holes and how they behave. I don't trust the science community too much. They are quite infiltrated and manipulated, IMHO.
Frode...
Thanks for the HOLOSCIENCE URL in your Email below (replying to Scott). Frode, that is a FIRST RATE website! You've really contributed an excellent source of startling new information. Thank you again.
Have read all on the Holoscience website (and am printing off same - slowly, lot of images with the text - for later re-reading). Suggest everyone also read, whether they agree or not with the material presented.
Certainly the website presents probable evidence (agreeing with my own view) that "Black Holes" are more fiction that real. A celestial body generating and radiating outward un-measurably enormous electromagnetic gravitational forces that are so powerful they apparently reach and control the rotation and orbits of countless millions of "distant" other stars, may well appear 'black," dark and "invisible" to vision. Specialized rays carrying the Light Forces it generates to illuminate its own body and atmosphere, may be incapable of escaping outward into space against the overall gravitational "pull" of that gigantic body. Shrouded by a "veil" of darkness, such a body (and others like it) may forever remain invisible to our sight.
Many "scientists" have currently come to agree with the idea that over 90% of the elements, rays and Forces in the universe are "dark" and invisible to sight. Unseen and undetectable by our cleverest instruments. So too with LOCATIONS in space that emit magnetic "pull" but appear invisible. I enjoy science fiction, but to presume such bodies are "black holes" are magnetic-vortexes, centripetally sucking inward every piece of matter around them and compressing all "sucked" into some dimensionless "inside" point (or spit out into a different "universe" space as in StarTrek?) lacks any so far presented "evidence." Just a neat science fiction concept, in my opinion. Its seems the REVERSE of the idiotic Big Bang theory; that everything in existence, including "space" itself, originated from a "no-thing," a postulated "point" when NOthing else existed!
Consider what the Big Bang believers have presented us. A great many of such "scientists" think themselves to be atheists and agnostics (possibly most)...
Yet with the Big Bang fiction, (ALL coming from a no-thing point), they really suggest (even if they haven't admitted it to their own minds) that a conscious, thinking CREATOR of some sort, a "Supreme Beingness," has "pointed" to an arbitrary point (in non-space) and commanded that from that point be "exploded" and created outward a complete "physical" universe, space and time, etc!
Incredible! Without admitting so to themselves, they seem to me to be far more "believers" in the existence of "God" or a Supreme Being, than many millions of orthodox church-going people who consciously profess belief in a Supreme Being.
The Holoscience website idea that there is (some) INSTANTANEOUS "movement" across space (that is certainly faster than Einstein's old "speed of light" theory!) also appeals to me. Is it also possible that some of the "distant" events we perceive happening countless distances away are happening real-time NOW, not billions of light years in the "past?" That may or may not be so. But space and "distances" may NOT be as as they seem... \
My own past experience as a Scientologist in the 1950s (I quit in the 60s), suggested that the physical universe itself - matter, space and time - was a creative (and enjoyable) 3 dimensional, "solid" to our senses, ILLUSION (a "mockup} that ALL individual beings in this universe collectively, in sub-conscious agreement, with all others, were simultaneously creating and re-creating, instant by instant.
Of course this implies that we countless individual beings exist "within" an even "larger" or greater conscious Beingness that invented both "us" and the universe we perceive. Those of you like Dean, conversant with other similar concepts, know Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard) was not alone or even original in looking at the physical universe as an illusory "solid." But it is obviously all we have to play with, so we have to use the agreed-upon natural laws that make it function. The Holoscience people, Cater, Lamprecht and others - partly in disagreement with many current orthodox scientific notions - appear to have a better grasp on some of the correct, natural laws controlling THIS particular physical universe illusion, which is OURS to mutually enjoy and experience.
Following is some support of website authors Thornhill and Talbott's "So What?" website conclusion that: "The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought"...
Decades back two University of Arizona mathematicians proved that Einstein's mathematical conclusions were wrong about the apparent SIZE of the universe. Using the same figures as Einstein, they found the universe was actually about HALF the size that Einstein calculated. Einstein was mistaken. For several days,their astounding pronouncement and evidence was front-page, headline news in newspapers across the world and on our early TV network news.
Then came the barrage of Einstein fans in academia, attacking the U of A mathematicians. No solid attacks on their WORK, just personal, nasty, scathing belittling ridicule of the two men personally. "How dare they question the great Einstein!" was most of what I read and heard stated by the attackers. I followed the entire story at that time. Within a few days later, the entire story was dropped and forgotten by the media and academia. I am not sure, but I think those two mathematicians are long gone from the University of Arizona. I'd lay odds they never received tenure. Not a word has since been publicly reported about them (so far as I am aware) or any acknowledgement that Einstein had made a truly COLLOSAL error (still accepted in academia?)
But whether Einstein, the mathematicians or Thornhill and Talbott were or are correct about the SIZE of the visible universe, seems questionable to me. The size extent of our spacial universe may be ENDLESS and unlimited. What could possibly limit it to a "size?"
Frode, so far, along with the just preceding, only a few personal disagreements with Thornhill and Talbott's concluding "So What?" assertions on the Holoscience website (presumably their own views)...
They are: * "Almost all planetary craters are electric arc scars..."and * "Space has no extra dimensions... where parallel universes may exist." I think those assertions they've made, are subject to some correction. Many (perhaps most) craters are volcanically caused. Possibly some are also electrically caused.
Thornhill and Talbott's contention that the universe is created and maintained by Electrical Forces is obviously true. But they have left out "WHO" or "WHAT" created those electrical forces...
Those forces clearly have been QUALIFIED with specific, special MOTIVES.
They carry out specific but multitudinous tasks in the functioning of our universe, from the tiniest atomic particle to the largest sun. Aside from the science fiction excitement hopes of some of our current "scientists," most (or all) stars and their satellites do NOT crash into each other. Those electrical forces controlling the uncountable visible bodies revolving in space and revolving the tiniest particles within atoms, carry out their assigned duties in nature, in delicate cooperation with each other having different duties. Clearly there is no CHAOS. Even perceiving this amazing wonder, some of our fellows continue to think the universe only some mechanistic accident. Poor thinking.
Dick Fojut in Tucson
-----------------------------------------------
Frode's original Email follows...
I agree with you that the moon has more gravity and more
atmosphere than
has been reported by the powers that be. What I am suggesting is that
the technique
used to measure the mass and indirectly that gravity of the Moon is
itself incorrect.
I did some extensive writing on this in a prior e-mail. I guess it takes
time to get to
them all. By the way, I liked that attachment you sent that gave further
clues that the
Moon is not a vacuum at all but has a viable atmosphere! I liked
practically everything
I read! My reasons for not needing to abandon Newton is based on what I
consider a
very faulty method of determining the mass of the Moon in relationship to
the Earth.
If this is the case, then one might have a much more massive planet in
the Moon than
the 1 part in 82 that has been estimated as its ratio to the Earth.
Where do you think the
idea that the Moon has only 1/6th gravity of the Earth came form
anywhere? It was reverse
engineered to coin a phrase from having the Earth 82 times more massive.
Work the
mass equation for the Moon backwards and PRESTO!, We have that silly
1/6th gravity
which you guys are suffering under and it is this fact in combination
with all of the
other Moon data that makes you think it is a Newtonian flaw.
All I am suggesting is to verify the mass of the Moon before we
go and nail Newton's
notes in a coffin.
Scott
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:41:57 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected]
writes:
Members,
I have included a couple of pages from Chapter One of Cater's book in
support of the idea that the Moon has an atmosphere. Easy reading,
enthralling.
Scott-
If we don't abandone Newton, how can we accomodate an atmosphere on the
Moon? !/6 of the Earth's gravity doesn't cut it.
I'm still considering your theory. I'll have a comment or two tonight, I
imagine. I have to follow it, first.
