Dean,
In reading the following e-mail I can agree in part with many
of the things therein. While I have agreement with the idea that a
heavier than air water droplet appears to defy gravity and thus be
an argument against the mass product concept of gravity, could it
be that an electromagnetic scenario of gravity is in harmony with
the mass product idea? After all, can it not be stated that if the
clouds have a polarization of charge that it is merely what we could
consider a normal extension of things according to the law of
mass products? All gravity does is effect material bodies and it
seems inescapable to me that this electromagnetic theory for gravity
is not a stand alone phenomena. The charge of the average atom
is simply a matter of its passive state responding to the law of
electromagnetism. This for all the world makes it appear that the
mass product is indeed the correct theory. What you seem to be
indicating is that it is not the mass of an object that causes its
gravitationally induced responses, yet, can one possibly separate
mass from its energy? Einstein's famous formula right or wrong
E = mc^2 indicates that mass and pure energy are two sides of the
same coin.
Therefore, we are both are correct to state our side of the
coin is the proper idea while at the same actually doing nothing to
denigrate the other fellows definition. For those of you familiar
with the history of physics, there is even today a mystery concerning
the very nature of light and the nature of electrons as they orbit
in their various shells. Some believe that light is a wave and others
state that it is packets of phonic energy. The Heisenberg uncertainty
principle is all about the dilemma in physics where electrons have the
appearance of being particles and waves all at the same time. As
particles they have share some of the characteristics of waves which
makes an exact determination of their exact position at any point in time
difficult to pin down. If such problems exist dealing with a single
subatomic particle, then is it any wonder that we find ourselves often
in marked disagreement as to the nature and governing principle that
accounts for gravity?
Jan Lamprecht if memory serves me suggested in his book
that gravity of the Earth might be altered due to the effects of
internal electric fields. If I have quoted him correctly on this, then
he is basically suggesting the same thing as I am.
As to the ideas about clouds, I have also seen objects
more perceptible to the human eye than microscopic water droplets
which you say should not retain their buoyancy in the mass product
Newtonian thought float in mid air. I have seen seed pod carriers,
or the spores from plants. It cannot be in doubt that these find
buoyancy sufficient to even allow them to ascend upward if provided
with the slightest bit of air turbulence. The Earth is always heating up
and cooling down. This causes natural convection currents where air
trades places from day to night. This movement of the atmosphere
should not be discounted. Suggesting that water having a mass HAS
to drop toward the Earth and that since it appears that it sometimes
doesn't should not necessarily dictate that Newtons mass product
concept is disproved.
I will state again that I disagree with the way you have
dismissed
the null-gravity problem. Without studying my latest program data, you
aren't anymore impartial than I have been at times with my lack of
interest
in Mr. Cater. You said something in a recent e-mail that due to the
frequency
change and of the gravity radiation only penetrating 50 miles into the
crust, the null gravity question has been handled. This is sloppy
science
in my book! Even if there was such a change or incomplete penetration of
gravity, should that effect the external dynamics of gravity which on the
external
surface follow very precise and predictable rules? One way of
considering
gravity on the inner surface of the shell is that the effects of gravity
throughout
the interior expanse will mirror the same exact response that is the case
for
the exterior of the planet. I assume that the differences between our
conception
of inner Earth gravity and what is actually the case may explain some of
the uncertainty, but until then the question is still unsuccessfully
handled by you.
A gravity field at ground level inside of the shell ought to adhere to
the same
rules as are evident on the exterior, and knowing this, there is no
facility by
which the transmission of gravity radiation can be changed in mere
atmosphere
or even interior vacuum which I assume would be centrally positioned.
If you accept this notion as a purely hypothetical argument, then
one is
then forced to consider the null-gravity scenario especially in light of
certain
calculations which would indicate that there is null gravity throughout
the entire
interior expanse. This has been done and unless you are prepared to
point out
the flaw behind such calculations they cannot be ignored and you might as
well
believe something as a matter of faith and not partake in hard science
which
I believe given the chance should be able to provide one with an
explanation
for all tangible material phenomenon.
I happen to believe very strongly that a positive gravity field
does exist
on the inner surface of the shell structure. Finding evidence to the
contrary in
mathematical calculations does not doom my ultimate belief in the HET but
it is a disappointment to think that one is not privy to a scientific
sophistication
sufficient to be its accurate predictor.
Scott
To review my program Multi.exe simply submit to these two conditions and
e-mail me at [email protected]
with the words "I agree" in the subject line which indicates your
acceptance of my terms. Thanks for your interest!
- Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished
work in progress, AND
- To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the
program.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:23:41 -0000 [email protected] writes:
List Members-
I got a letter today from Mr. Cater. I had asked him about clouds
and
gravity. You all know that gravity is a very key concept to the
Hollow Earth Theory. Gravity as an electromagnetic radiation is
certainly very compatible with the HET.
One phenomenon which Newtonian gravity, gravity occasioned by mass,
does not explain well is the fact that clouds don't fall. Clouds
consist of tons of water in the form of microscopic droplets, and
they float in mid air, suspended as it were, far beyond the
justification that any air resistance or viscosity of air can
justify.
I was uncomfortable with an opposing argument which a science guy on
Mike's list threw at me. He stated that the reasons that clouds
float
is that they flux between a gaseous state and the state of
microscopic water droplets. Between you, me and the lamppost, I know
damn well that clouds aren't gaseous, they are suspended water
droplets, tons and tons of them, heavier than the surrounding air.
Anyway, when I asked Mr. Cater, this is what he said: " It is
possible that there is a flux in certain cases between liquid and
gaseous. But so what? Obviously, clouds are comprised almost
exclusively of water droplets or ice crystals. Any object that
encounters them becomes soaked and they exist at very low
temperatures. The only explanation, of course, is that these ice
crystals or water droplets have negative charges that gives the
entire mass a net charge of zero."
Get the point? In the Polar areas the clouds exist in freezing
temperatures, for days and weeks on end without sinking. They don't
flux to any gaseous state, the microscopic droplets freeze! Even
then
clouds don't fall. It is the charge which keeps them afloat. In my
article Clouds Don't Fall, I quote Mr. Cater's explanation about how
this charge on the droplets comes about:
http://skywebsite.com/hollow/hollowearthscience/id6.html
" Now back to the example of clouds to study exactly how they are
imbued with negative charges- Remember that Mr. Cater presents the
idea of a gravitational field being characterized by a negative
charge. " A paradox seems to exist with regards to clouds. They
consist of small water droplets that do not fall. From the
standpoint
of the properties of water just presented, they should fall. Every
water droplet is attached to a dust particle. This dust particle
absorbs a high concentration of negative charges from the water. The
particle would levitate upward, were it were not for the water
droplet holding it down. [ The droplet now bereft of its negative
charge, and simply exhibiting the natural, positive charge of
matter ] If the amount of water around this dust particle exceeds
the
critical amount, the droplet will fall as rain. Outer space is
permeated with fine dust that continually replaces the dust taken
out
of the atmosphere by precipitation. Ths dust is vital to sustaining
life on a planet. Without it, there would be little or no
precipitation."
The idea is that any theory of gravity should be able to explain the
phenomenon of the floatation of clouds. The one theory of gravity
which is so compatible with the HET,the theory of gravity as an
electromagnetic radiation, also explains the flotation of clouds
well.
Dharma/Dean