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 extracted the following from Dick's complaints about imprecise orthodox DEFINITIONS in Jastrow and Thompson's textbook...
(Scott commented)...
----------------------------
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
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?
----------------------------
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
------------------------------------
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
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?