critique #1 on Dick's comments

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
1

GRAVITY: "The attraction of one MASS to another, one of the basic FORCES of the physical universe."

(Gravity is usually explained that the BIGGER mass attracts the smaller mass. One problem with Newton's "LAW" for masses, mentioned by Churchward; If the apple tree is on the SIDE of the hill, when the apple falls, it should STAY put against the hill's side - against the BIGGER mass. Right? But it doesn't! It continues to roll to the bottom of the hill, attempting to reach earth's central magnet, beyond 50 miles deep. The apple's roll is stopped by the intervening density of the rocky crust. The apple stops there, which is as close as it can get to earth's central magnet.

The preceding example suggests that orthodoxy may be partly mistaken that big ELEMENTAL masses in space attract small ELEMENTAL masses. INSTEAD, it may be unseen electromagnetic FORCES generated by revolving bodies that attract each other, not elements attracting elements. Not Masses attracting masses.)

Dick,

You are missing part of the picture. The Earth as a whole pulls objects to itself until a resistance is encountered by the object. The general direction of this motion is toward the center of the earth or as I call it, the center vector. You compare a hill but I will use something much larger like a mountain. A mountain is an enormous amount of mass seemingly but it it were out in space and you compared its gravitational attraction to a planetary body such as the earth, the mountains gravitational pull on an object would be negligible. I am not saying that a force might not

exist from the mountain, it is just that this force is overshadowed by that of the rest of the earth itself, so, no, this particular argument doesn't stand as an adequate illustration against the principle of gravity being a product of masses inversely squared. If we find reasons to abandon traditional thinking we must come up with stronger evidences which science will find fool proof. Otherwise, we are just wasting our time.

Scott

2

Dick replies To Scott about Gravity,
etc.
Scott extracted the following from Dick's complaints about
imprecise orthodox DEFINITIONS in Jastrow and Thompson's
textbook...

GRAVITY: "The attraction of one
MASS to another, one of the basic FORCES of the physical
universe."
(Gravity is
usually explained that the BIGGER mass attracts the smaller mass. One
problem with Newton's "LAW" for masses, mentioned by
Churchward; If the apple tree is on the SIDE of the hill, when the
apple falls, it should STAY put against the hill's side - against the
BIGGER mass. Right? But it doesn't! It continues to roll to the
bottom of the hill, attempting to reach earth's central magnet,
beyond 50 miles deep. The apple's roll is stopped by the intervening
density of the rocky crust. The apple stops there, which is as close
as it can get to earth's central magnet.
The preceding
example suggests that orthodoxy may be partly mistaken that big
ELEMENTAL masses in space attract small ELEMENTAL masses. INSTEAD, it
may be unseen electromagnetic FORCES generated by revolving bodies
that attract each other, not elements attracting elements. Not Masses
attracting masses.)

(Scott commented)...

···

Dick,
You are missing part
of the picture. The Earth as a whole pulls objects to itself
until a resistance is encountered by the object. The general
direction of this motion is toward the center of the earth or as I
call it, the center vector. You compare a hill but I will use
something much larger like a mountain. A mountain is an
enormous amount of mass seemingly but it it were out in space and you
compared its gravitational attraction to a planetary body such as the
earth, the mountains gravitational pull on an object would be
negligible. I am not saying that a force might not
exist from the mountain, it is just that
this force is overshadowed by that of the rest of the earth itself,
so, no, this particular argument doesn't stand as an adequate
illustration against the principle of gravity being a product of
masses inversely squared. If we find reasons to abandon
traditional thinking we must come up with stronger evidences which
science will find fool proof. Otherwise, we are just wasting
our time.
Scott

Dick's reply to Scott -

Scott...

I don't think I am "missing part of
the picture."

Do we both agree that earth
is a NOT solid ball, but a HOLLOW sphere with an outside
crust? Do we agree that physicists may be INCORRECT in
their standard assumption that earth has a solid iron-nickel core
surrounded by another ball of molten iron, plus additional thick rock
and/or molten masses extending toward the surface? Do we agree
that orthodox physicists may be INCORRECT assuming that earth's
"source of gravity," its magnetic "pulling" center, is in
that assumed "magnetic" iron-nickel core?

**If we agree about the above points,
isn't the great majority of earth's MASS located in its relatively
thin crust? ** If so, Isn't it really the crust's MASS,
not "the earth as a whole" that is probably "pulling" objects
to itself? Whether you think it is the crust's elemental MASS as a
whole - or a magnetic "center" area deep within the crust -
isn't earth's "source of gravity" found IN the crust
and not at earth's center?

Repeating this again: In
my 1948 Britannica, the science writer on earth's geology and
gravity, noted that scientists (at the time of his writing) had found
earth's source of gravity is not at earth's center, but
appears to originate some 50 miles deep, "evenly around the entire
globe." I was astounded when I read that. To me it was a
possible verification of James Churchward's assertion that earth's
source of gravity originates somewhere below 50 miles deep, at his
theorized "Friction" line where the hard cold outside crust
grinds against a slower moving molten layer which can cool no
further.

For other reasons than Churchward,
Cater also thinks earth's "source of gravity" is to be found at
(or beyond?) 50 miles from the surface.

Scott, even though your comment
paragraph above seems to support certain "traditional"
(orthodox) beliefs and assumptions, I'm sure you have your own
objections since you also think, as I do, that our planet is probably
hollow.

If you haven't yet thoroughly
read DAVID PRATT'S online book about EARTH and his website treatise
of GRAVITY, please do. His analyses of traditional and
non-traditional beliefs on the subjects are excellent. He also
explains PARI SPOLTER'S assertions that calculating any MASSES is
unnecessary to determine gravity effects between two bodies. She
provides simplified formulas that seem to work, without consideration
of apparent mass. And Pratt also presents many valid experiments that
cast doubt on the overall accuracy of Newton's notions about gravity.
Read them and judge for yourself. I'm posting the Pratt URLs again at
the end of this email.

Pratt, as I understand him, also
pointed out that NASA scientists, relying on Newton's laws,
"masses" and traditional beliefs about gravity, etc., within
our solar system, successfully plot accurate flights. That
seems to knock the idea of Earth or some planets being hollow and
most mass being in a crust. But, Pratt theorized: if ALL the
planets in our solar AND the Sun, are also Hollow, NASA's
calculations for space flights would still function perfectly.

Pratt's reasonable idea, seems to
support Lamprecht's, Cater's, and Dean's beliefs that Mars, Venus and
other planets are probably also hollow, as they believe earth to
be. Although Dean (and you?) agree about a hollow condition for
Earth, Mars, Venus, etc, Dean still seems to favor the idea that our
Sun is a HOT ball of Plasma Gas.

But Pratt's observation, that NASA's
space flights could still function if ALL our planets were hollow,
INCLUDED THE SUN. Without knowing it, Pratt seems to give
credence to Churchward's suggestions; that all LIVE bodies (rotating
on an axis), planets and Suns, are probably constructed similarly,
with a relatively cool and hard outer crust, and a hot molten layer
beneath (forming a Frictiion line) - and a probable HOLLOW
center! If the Sun IS also hollow, how can it still be a ball of
hot gas? Or as one website theorizes, a ball of plasma
lightning?

Scott, I have a memory like a sieve.
Unless I'm constantly referring to a book, I've needed to re-read
some books MANY times over years to recall clearly what I should have
retained from the first reading. Churchward's books included. I
have re-read most of them probably a dozen times! (and
still discover new insights.) If you share any of my tendencies to
forget, especially if not discussing or thinking about a subject for
long periods of time, I suggest you RE-READ all 5 of those Churchward
books you told me you had read. You may find something to agree with
or clear up some of your objections.

Another of Churchward's examples
(aside from the universally talked about apple and tree) that you
seem to have forgotten, was his simple, but illustrative example of a
WALL and a particle of DUST. Like every earthly element, the elements
of the wall and the dust particle are PERMEATED with magnetic and
other forces.

And according to Churchward, at all
times, ALL forces tend to AGGREGATE, to join together.

The volume of forces in the dust
particle is small. The volume of forces permeating the wall is large.
The greater volume of forces in the wall ATTRACT the forces in the
dust particle. Unable to physically leave the elements of the dust
particle, the dust with its small amount of forces, clings to the
wall. SEEMINGLY ONLY, the larger MASS of the wall has attracted
the smaller MASS of the dust particle

Place a grain of sand on the
same wall. The tiny grain of sand immediately slides down the
wall to the floor, as close as it can get to earth's central magnet
below the surface. The wall, (or a MASSive building - OR the smooth
side of a MASSive mountain) does not possess enough volume of forces
to hold the grain of sand against the superior pull of earth's
central magnet. THE source of elemental gravity. Is that a
little better example?

Of course, you can mechanically or
electrically temporarily "charge" a metal bar with a
surplus volume of magnetic forces, and it will defy earth's force of
gravity by holding a metal nail or other metals to it. But not a
wall, building or mountain side, holding a grain of sand.

Scott, please read Pratt's stuff
(URLs listed) below. He's not out to destroy all of Newton's
concepts... but where they may be in error, it should at least be
considered.

  • Dick.

P.S. Good to hear
from you again on the list. My wife also asks, was she helpful with
her private notes about dinosaurs?

PART One
by David Pratt...

Gravity and
Anti-Gravity

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm

Part Two by David
Pratt....

Gravity and
Anti-Gravity

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity2.htm

Mysteries of the Inner
Earth

by David
Pratt

May 2001

Part 1: The Solid Earth
Hypothesis

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner1.htm

Part 2: The Hollow Earth
Hypothesis

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner2.htm

Part 3: Polar Puzzles

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner3.htm

Part 4: Mythology, Paradise, and the Inner
World

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner4.htm

3

Dick replies To Scott about Gravity, etc.

···

Repeating this again: In my 1948 Britannica, the science writer on earth's geology and gravity, noted that scientists (at the time of his writing) had found earth's ** source of gravity** is not at earth's center, ** but appears to originate some 50 miles deep, "evenly around the entire globe.** " I was astounded when I read that. To me it was a possible verification of James Churchward's assertion that earth's source of gravity originates somewhere below 50 miles deep, at his theorized "Friction" line where the hard cold outside crust grinds against a slower moving molten layer which can cool no further.

For other reasons than Churchward, Cater also thinks earth's "source of gravity" is to be found at (or beyond?) 50 miles from the surface.

  • Dick,
  • Amazing. for some reason Cater comes up with this measurement. It is possible that Etidorhpa also makes some comment like this, but I don't exactly remember now.
  • In Cater's scheme, the idea is that the gravity-inducing radiation penetrates, full force, down to 50 miles then drops off. This is because of his principle of Redistribution of Frequency. the particles radiated keep attaining lower and lower frequencies the further they penetrate, such that the immediate strata below the surface contains the frequency and hence gravitational attraction, while there is a strata of frequency just below it which is of a different frequency and without the gravity effects.
  • This second strata, containing frequencies similar to but different from the first strata, tends to block further penetration from the first strata.

Scott, even though your comment paragraph above seems to support certain "traditional" (orthodox) beliefs and assumptions, I'm sure you have your own objections since you also think, as I do, that our planet is probably hollow.

If you haven't yet thoroughly read DAVID PRATT'S online book about EARTH and his website treatise of GRAVITY, please do. His analyses of traditional and non-traditional beliefs on the subjects are excellent. He also explains PARI SPOLTER'S assertions that calculating any MASSES is unnecessary to determine gravity effects between two bodies. She provides simplified formulas that seem to work, without consideration of apparent mass. And Pratt also presents many valid experiments that cast doubt on the overall accuracy of Newton's notions about gravity. Read them and judge for yourself. I'm posting the Pratt URLs again at the end of this email.

  • Several of the concepts which he simply mentions, without attributing them, come right from Cater.
  • Nice comments below Dick.

Pratt, as I understand him, also pointed out that NASA scientists, ** relying on Newton's laws, "masses" and traditional beliefs about gravity, etc., within** our solar system , successfully plot accurate flights. That seems to knock the idea of Earth or some planets being hollow and most mass being in a crust. But, Pratt theorized: if ALL the planets in our solar AND the Sun , are also Hollow, NASA's calculations for space flights would still function perfectly.

** Pratt's reasonable idea, seems to support Lamprecht's, Cater's, and Dean's beliefs that Mars, Venus and other planets are probably also hollow, as they believe earth to be** . Although Dean (and you?) agree about a hollow condition for Earth, Mars, Venus, etc, Dean still seems to favor the idea that our Sun is a HOT ball of Plasma Gas.

  • No, I'm sure that it is hollow. But the crust could be charaterized by plasma material.

But Pratt's observation, that NASA's space flights could still function if ALL our planets were hollow, ** INCLUDED THE SUN.** Without knowing it, Pratt seems to give credence to Churchward's suggestions; that all LIVE bodies (rotating on an axis), planets and Suns, are probably constructed similarly, with a relatively cool and hard outer crust, and a hot molten layer beneath (forming a Frictiion line) ** - and a probable HOLLOW center!** If the Sun IS also hollow, how can it still be a ball of hot gas? Or as one website theorizes, a ball of plasma lightning?

Scott, I have a memory like a sieve . Unless I'm constantly referring to a book, I've needed to re-read some books MANY times over years to recall clearly what I should have retained from the first reading. Churchward's books included. ** I have re-read most of them probably a dozen times!** (and still discover new insights.) If you share any of my tendencies to forget, especially if not discussing or thinking about a subject for long periods of time, I suggest you RE-READ all 5 of those Churchward books you told me you had read. You may find something to agree with or clear up some of your objections.

Another of Churchward's examples (aside from the universally talked about apple and tree) that you seem to have forgotten, was his simple, but illustrative example of a WALL and a particle of DUST. Like every earthly element, the elements of the wall and the dust particle are PERMEATED with magnetic and other forces.

** And according to Churchward, at all times, ALL forces tend to AGGREGATE, to join together**.

  • This corresponds well to a concept of gravity as being an electrostatic force.

The volume of forces in the dust particle is small. The volume of forces permeating the wall is large. The greater volume of forces in the wall ATTRACT the forces in the dust particle. Unable to physically leave the elements of the dust particle, the dust with its small amount of forces, clings to the wall. ** SEEMINGLY ONLY, the larger MASS of the wall has attracted the smaller MASS of the dust particle**

  • Cater's concept is interesting in this regard. He admits that, generally, gravity does correspond to size and mass. But due to the way that the gravity charge only penetrates to a limited degree- 50 miles according to Cater- the larger that a celestial body be, the less that the gravity will correspond to its size.
  • Take, for example, a body around 150 miles in diameter. It could have 50 miles of gravity below the surface from any point. Any mass or area within that globular band becomes a non-gravity area, or an area of diminished gravity. ( A non-gravity cavity! ) Whether or not you have a globe 150 miles in diameter of 1,500 miles in diameter, you are going to have a band below your feet of about 50 miles worth of gravity. This is why small asteroids can exhibit Earth-like gravity in their ability to hold relatively large moons in orbit despite their low mass. This is why a smaller ( so they say ) planet like Mars can hold down a denser atmosphere than the Earth, as evidenced by cloud cover near the top of Olympus Mons, FIFTEEN MILES HIGH!. Our own atmosphere isn't dense enough to exhibit clouds that high. The Moon is another example. It is very small compared to the Earth. It exhibits clouds from time to time, but they are palmed off as " Transient Lunar Phenomena," in other words, out-gassing from below the Moon's crust, warmed and brought about by direct sunlight. David Hatcher childress shows a picture of a long clouds band fingering its way through some hills. The image doesn't correspond to an outgassing in a place where there is no atmosphere- the gassing would be dispersed. The Moon has no winds patterns to speak of because it has little magnetic field due to its super-slow rotation ( one day takes a month ), and because there is little or no water on the surface, hence it is hard to perceive the atmosphere. But it does have an atmosphere despite its low mass.
  • If they admit this, they practicallly have to admit that gravity isn't related to mass. There goes the petroleum industry because, when it is discovered that gravity is caused by a frequency of radiation, and when that frequency is discovered, it will become as easy to reproduce as building a go-cart in your garage and then you have antigravity. Then you have a loss of control over the civil population, too. And then a terrorist doesn'tneed an ICBM to deliver a nuclear bomb, either.
  • This stuff isn't for everybody. If the king has no clothes, just don'tsay anything.

Dharma/Dean

** Place a grain of sand on the same wall** . The tiny grain of sand immediately slides down the wall to the floor, as close as it can get to earth's central magnet below the surface. The wall, (or a MASSive building - OR the smooth side of a MASSive mountain) does not possess enough volume of forces to hold the grain of sand ** against the superior pull of earth's central magne** t. THE source of elemental gravity. Is that a little better example?

Of course, you can mechanically or electrically temporarily "charge" a metal bar with a surplus volume of magnetic forces, and it will defy earth's force of gravity by holding a metal nail or other metals to it. But not a wall, building or mountain side, holding a grain of sand.

Scott, please read Pratt's stuff (URLs listed) below. He's not out to destroy all of Newton's concepts... but where they may be in error, it should at least be considered.

  • Dick.

P.S. Good to hear from you again on the list. My wife also asks, was she helpful with her private notes about dinosaurs?

4

Re: [allplanets-hollow] Briefly to Scott &
Dick/Please
Dean... just read all your detailed comments below. Have to
digest all you wrote. But that business about "50 miles" I
remember from the Britannica (1947, not 1948 edition, my wife just
reminded me), plus Cater about it and Churchward, seems like more
than remarkable coincidence. Different viewpoints why, but maybe both
Ch and Ca are partly correct - and both maybe partly not? Scott
called me by phone after he read my comments to his comments and we
continued our friendly agree/disagree conversation. As far as I know
(with the possible exception of Hazel) he's the only other list
member who has read most of the MU books. Once he RE-reads the books
again (and refreshes his own memory, Scott can justifiably point out
Churchward's (and my) errors. Maybe even agree with parts! -
Dick

···

Repeating this
again: In my 1948 Britannica, the science writer on earth's
geology and gravity, noted that scientists (at the time of his
writing) had found earth's source of gravity is not at earth's
center, but appears to originate some 50 miles deep, "evenly
around the entire globe." I was astounded when I read that.
To me it was a possible verification of James Churchward's assertion
that earth's source of gravity originates somewhere below 50 miles
deep, at his theorized "Friction" line where the hard cold
outside crust grinds against a slower moving molten layer which can
cool no further.
For other reasons than
Churchward, Cater also thinks earth's "source of gravity"
is to be found at (or beyond?) 50 miles from the surface.

  • Dick,
  • Amazing. for some reason Cater comes up
    with this measurement. It is possible that Etidorhpa also makes
    some comment like this, but I don't exactly remember
    now.
  • In Cater's scheme, the idea is that the
    gravity-inducing radiation penetrates, full force, down to 50
    miles then drops off. This is because of his principle of
    Redistribution of Frequency. the particles radiated keep attaining
    lower and lower frequencies the further they penetrate, such that the
    immediate strata below the surface contains the frequency and
    hence gravitational attraction, while there is a strata of frequency
    just below it which is of a different frequency and without the
    gravity effects.
  • This second strata, containing
    frequencies similar to but different from the first strata, tends to
    block further penetration from the first strata.
    Scott, even though your comment
    paragraph above seems to support certain
    "traditional" (orthodox) beliefs and assumptions, I'm sure
    you have your own objections since you also think, as I do, that our
    planet is probably hollow.

If you haven't yet
thoroughly read DAVID PRATT'S online book about EARTH and his
website treatise of GRAVITY, please do. His analyses of traditional
and non-traditional beliefs on the subjects are excellent. He also
explains PARI SPOLTER'S assertions that calculating any MASSES is
unnecessary to determine gravity effects between two bodies. She
provides simplified formulas that seem to work, without consideration
of apparent mass. And Pratt also presents many valid experiments that
cast doubt on the overall accuracy of Newton's notions about gravity.
Read them and judge for yourself. I'm posting the Pratt URLs again at
the end of this email.

  • Several of the concepts which he
    simply mentions, without attributing them, come right from
    Cater.
  • Nice comments below
    Dick.

Pratt, as I understand him, also
pointed out that NASA scientists, relying on Newton's laws,
"masses" and traditional beliefs about gravity, etc.,
within our solar system, successfully plot accurate
flights. That seems to knock the idea of Earth or some planets being
hollow and most mass being in a crust. But, Pratt theorized: if
ALL the planets in our solar AND the Sun, are also Hollow,
NASA's calculations for space flights would still function
perfectly.

Pratt's reasonable idea,
seems to support Lamprecht's, Cater's, and Dean's beliefs that Mars,
Venus and other planets are probably also hollow, as they believe
earth to be. Although Dean (and you?) agree about a hollow
condition for Earth, Mars, Venus, etc, Dean still seems to favor the
idea that our Sun is a HOT ball of Plasma Gas.

  • No, I'm sure that it is hollow. But the
    crust could be charaterized by plasma material.

But Pratt's observation, that
NASA's space flights could still function if ALL our planets were
hollow, INCLUDED THE SUN. Without knowing it, Pratt seems to
give credence to Churchward's suggestions; that all LIVE bodies
(rotating on an axis), planets and Suns, are probably constructed
similarly, with a relatively cool and hard outer crust, and a hot
molten layer beneath (forming a Frictiion line) - and a probable
HOLLOW center! If the Sun IS also hollow, how can it still be a
ball of hot gas? Or as one website theorizes, a ball of plasma
lightning?

Scott, I have a memory like a
sieve. Unless I'm constantly referring to a book, I've needed to
re-read some books MANY times over years to recall clearly what I
should have retained from the first reading. Churchward's books
included. I have re-read most of them probably a dozen
times! (and still discover new insights.) If you share any
of my tendencies to forget, especially if not discussing or thinking
about a subject for long periods of time, I suggest you RE-READ all 5
of those Churchward books you told me you had read. You may find
something to agree with or clear up some of your
objections.

Another of Churchward's
examples (aside from the universally talked about apple and tree)
that you seem to have forgotten, was his simple, but illustrative
example of a WALL and a particle of DUST. Like every earthly element,
the elements of the wall and the dust particle are PERMEATED with
magnetic and other forces.
And according to Churchward,
at all times, ALL forces tend to AGGREGATE, to join
together.

  • This corresponds well to a concept of
    gravity as being an electrostatic force.
    The volume of forces in the dust
    particle is small. The volume of forces permeating the wall is large.
    The greater volume of forces in the wall ATTRACT the forces in the
    dust particle. Unable to physically leave the elements of the dust
    particle, the dust with its small amount of forces, clings to the
    wall. SEEMINGLY ONLY, the larger MASS of the wall has attracted
    the smaller MASS of the dust particle
  • Cater's concept is interesting in this
    regard. He admits that, generally, gravity does correspond to size
    and mass. But due to the way that the gravity charge only penetrates
    to a limited degree- 50 miles according to Cater- the larger that a
    celestial body be, the less that the gravity will correspond to its
    size.
  • Take, for example, a body around 150
    miles in diameter. It could have 50 miles of gravity below the
    surface from any point. Any mass or area within that globular band
    becomes a non-gravity area, or an area of diminished gravity. ( A
    non-gravity cavity! ) Whether or not you have a globe 150 miles
    in diameter of 1,500 miles in diameter, you are going to have a band
    below your feet of about 50 miles worth of gravity. This is why small
    asteroids can exhibit Earth-like gravity in their ability to hold
    relatively large moons in orbit despite their low mass. This is why a
    smaller ( so they say ) planet like Mars can hold down a denser
    atmosphere than the Earth, as evidenced by cloud cover near the top
    of Olympus Mons, FIFTEEN MILES HIGH!. Our own atmosphere isn't dense
    enough to exhibit clouds that high. The Moon is another example. It
    is very small compared to the Earth. It exhibits clouds from time to
    time, but they are palmed off as " Transient Lunar
    Phenomena," in other words, out-gassing from below the Moon's
    crust, warmed and brought about by direct sunlight. David
    Hatcher childress shows a picture of a long clouds band fingering its
    way through some hills. The image doesn't correspond to an outgassing
    in a place where there is no atmosphere- the gassing would be
    dispersed. The Moon has no winds patterns to speak of because it has
    little magnetic field due to its super-slow rotation ( one day takes
    a month ), and because there is little or no water on the
    surface, hence it is hard to perceive the atmosphere. But it
    does have an atmosphere despite its low mass.
  • If they admit this, they practicallly
    have to admit that gravity isn't related to mass. There goes the
    petroleum industry because, when it is discovered that gravity is
    caused by a frequency of radiation, and when that frequency is
    discovered, it will become as easy to reproduce as building a go-cart
    in your garage and then you have antigravity. Then you have a loss of
    control over the civil population, too. And then a terrorist
    doesn'tneed an ICBM to deliver a nuclear bomb,
    either.
  • This stuff isn't for everybody. If the
    king has no clothes, just don'tsay anything.
    Dharma/Dean

Place a grain of sand
on the same wall. The tiny grain of sand immediately slides down
the wall to the floor, as close as it can get to earth's central
magnet below the surface. The wall, (or a MASSive building - OR the
smooth side of a MASSive mountain) does not possess enough volume of
forces to hold the grain of sand against the superior pull of
earth's central magnet. THE source of elemental gravity. Is
that a little better example?

Of course, you can mechanically
or electrically temporarily "charge" a metal bar with
a surplus volume of magnetic forces, and it will defy earth's force
of gravity by holding a metal nail or other metals to it. But not a
wall, building or mountain side, holding a grain of sand.

Scott, please read Pratt's
stuff (URLs listed) below. He's not out to destroy all of Newton's
concepts... but where they may be in error, it should at least be
considered.

  • Dick.
    P.S. Good to
    hear from you again on the list. My wife also asks, was she helpful
    with her private notes about dinosaurs?

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[

Click for Details

`To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[email protected]

`

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the ](http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168002.1477935.3051340.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700043464:N/A=624150/*http://mojofarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-2?bn=LikeManDVD468)Yahoo! Terms of Service.

5

Dick replies To Scott about Gravity, etc.
Dick, Dean & Scott,

Excellent post guys. Very thought provoking. I enjoyed reading it. Churchward and Cater seem to have many similar ideas. Always nice to have a few authors who, if are not on the exact same page, then are pretty darn close. It helps us understand THE theory all that much better.

Thanks, Leslee

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Dean De Lucia
To: [email protected]

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 6:01 AMSubject: [allplanets-hollow] Briefly to Scott & Dick/Please read ya all!

Repeating this again: In my 1948 Britannica, the science writer on earth's geology and gravity, noted that scientists (at the time of his writing) had found earth's ** source of gravity** is not at earth's center, ** but appears to originate some 50 miles deep, "evenly around the entire globe.** " I was astounded when I read that. To me it was a possible verification of James Churchward's assertion that earth's source of gravity originates somewhere below 50 miles deep, at his theorized "Friction" line where the hard cold outside crust grinds against a slower moving molten layer which can cool no further.

For other reasons than Churchward, Cater also thinks earth's "source of gravity" is to be found at (or beyond?) 50 miles from the surface.
  • Dick,
* Amazing. for some reason Cater comes up with this measurement. It is possible that Etidorhpa also makes some comment like this, but I don't exactly remember now.

* In Cater's scheme, the idea is that the gravity-inducing radiation penetrates, full force, down to 50 miles then drops off. This is because of his principle of Redistribution of Frequency. the particles radiated keep attaining lower and lower frequencies the further they penetrate, such that the immediate strata below the surface contains the frequency and hence gravitational attraction, while there is a strata of frequency just below it which is of a different frequency and without the gravity effects.

* This second strata, containing frequencies similar to but different from the first strata, tends to block further penetration from the first strata.

Scott, even though your comment paragraph above **seems** to support certain "traditional" (orthodox) beliefs and assumptions, I'm sure you have your own objections since you also think, as I do, that our planet is probably hollow.

If you haven't yet thoroughly read DAVID PRATT'S online book about EARTH and his website treatise of GRAVITY, please do. His analyses of traditional and non-traditional beliefs on the subjects are excellent. He also explains PARI SPOLTER'S assertions that calculating any MASSES is unnecessary to determine gravity effects between two bodies. She provides simplified formulas that seem to work, without consideration of apparent mass. And Pratt also presents many valid experiments that cast doubt on the overall accuracy of Newton's notions about gravity. Read them and judge for yourself. I'm posting the Pratt URLs again at the end of this email.

* Several of the concepts which he simply mentions, without attributing them, come right from Cater.
  • Nice comments below Dick.
Pratt, as I understand him, also pointed out that NASA scientists, **    relying on Newton's laws, "masses" and traditional beliefs about gravity, etc., within** **our solar system**    , successfully plot accurate flights. That seems to knock the idea of Earth or some planets being hollow and most mass being in a crust. But, Pratt theorized:  if ALL the planets in our solar **AND the Sun**    , are also Hollow, NASA's calculations for space flights would still function perfectly.

** Pratt's reasonable idea, seems to support Lamprecht's, Cater's, and Dean's beliefs that Mars, Venus and other planets are probably also hollow, as they believe earth to be** . Although Dean (and you?) agree about a hollow condition for Earth, Mars, Venus, etc, Dean still seems to favor the idea that our Sun is a HOT ball of Plasma Gas.

* No, I'm sure that it is hollow. But the crust could be charaterized by plasma material.

But Pratt's observation, that NASA's space flights could still function if ALL our planets were hollow, **    INCLUDED THE SUN.** Without knowing it, Pratt seems to give credence to Churchward's suggestions; that all LIVE bodies (rotating on an axis), planets and Suns, are probably constructed similarly, with a relatively cool and hard outer crust, and a hot molten layer beneath (forming a Frictiion line) **    - and a probable HOLLOW center!** If the Sun IS also hollow, how can it still be a ball of hot gas? Or as one website theorizes, a ball of plasma lightning?

Scott, I have a memory like a sieve . Unless I'm constantly referring to a book, I've needed to re-read some books MANY times over years to recall clearly what I should have retained from the first reading. Churchward's books included. ** I have re-read most of them probably a dozen times!** (and still discover new insights.) If you share any of my tendencies to forget, especially if not discussing or thinking about a subject for long periods of time, I suggest you RE-READ all 5 of those Churchward books you told me you had read. You may find something to agree with or clear up some of your objections.

Another of Churchward's examples (aside from the universally talked about apple and tree) that you seem to have forgotten, was his simple, but illustrative example of a WALL and a particle of DUST. Like every earthly element, the elements of the wall and the dust particle are PERMEATED with magnetic and other forces.

** And according to Churchward, at all times, ALL forces tend to AGGREGATE, to join together**.

* This corresponds well to a concept of gravity as being an electrostatic force.

The volume of forces in the dust particle is small. The volume of forces permeating the wall is large. The greater volume of forces in the wall ATTRACT the forces in the dust particle. Unable to physically leave the elements of the dust particle, the dust with its small amount of forces, clings to the wall. **    SEEMINGLY ONLY, the larger MASS of the wall has attracted the smaller MASS of the dust particle**

* Cater's concept is interesting in this regard. He admits that, generally, gravity does correspond to size and mass. But due to the way that the gravity charge only penetrates to a limited degree- 50 miles according to Cater- the larger that a celestial body be, the less that the gravity will correspond to its size.

* Take, for example, a body around 150 miles in diameter. It could have 50 miles of gravity below the surface from any point. Any mass or area within that globular band becomes a non-gravity area, or an area of diminished gravity. ( A non-gravity cavity! )  Whether or not you have a globe 150 miles in diameter of 1,500 miles in diameter, you are going to have a band below your feet of about 50 miles worth of gravity. This is why small asteroids can exhibit Earth-like gravity in their ability to hold relatively large moons in orbit despite their low mass. This is why a smaller ( so they say ) planet like Mars can hold down a denser atmosphere than the Earth, as evidenced by cloud cover near the top of Olympus Mons, FIFTEEN MILES HIGH!. Our own atmosphere isn't dense enough to exhibit clouds that high. The Moon is another example. It is very small compared to the Earth. It exhibits clouds from time to time, but they are palmed off as " Transient Lunar Phenomena," in other words, out-gassing from below the Moon's crust, warmed and brought about by direct sunlight. David Hatcher childress shows a picture of a long clouds band fingering its way through some hills. The image doesn't correspond to an outgassing in a place where there is no atmosphere- the gassing would be dispersed. The Moon has no winds patterns to speak of because it has little magnetic field due to its super-slow rotation ( one day takes a month ), and because there is little or no water on the surface, hence it is hard to perceive the atmosphere. But it does have an atmosphere despite its low mass.

* If they admit this, they practicallly have to admit that gravity isn't related to mass. There goes the petroleum industry because, when it is discovered that gravity is caused by a frequency of radiation, and when that frequency is discovered, it will become as easy to reproduce as building a go-cart in your garage and then you have antigravity. Then you have a loss of control over the civil population, too. And then a terrorist doesn'tneed an ICBM to deliver a nuclear bomb, either.

* This stuff isn't for everybody. If the king has no clothes, just don'tsay anything.

Dharma/Dean

** Place a grain of sand on the same wall** . The tiny grain of sand immediately slides down the wall to the floor, as close as it can get to earth's central magnet below the surface. The wall, (or a MASSive building - OR the smooth side of a MASSive mountain) does not possess enough volume of forces to hold the grain of sand against the superior pull of earth's central magne t. THE source of elemental gravity. Is that a little better example?

Of course, you can mechanically or electrically temporarily  "charge" a metal bar with a surplus volume of magnetic forces, and it will defy earth's force of gravity by holding a metal nail or other metals to it. But not a wall, building or mountain side, holding a grain of sand.

Scott,  please read Pratt's stuff (URLs listed) below. He's not out to destroy all of Newton's concepts... but where they may be in error, it should at least be considered.
  • Dick.
P.S. Good to hear from you again on the list. My wife also asks, was she helpful with her private notes about dinosaurs?

` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

`

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.256 / Virus Database: 129 - Release Date: 5/31/01