FORUM POLL

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
,
1

Dean,

It is you who is being accusatory now. I made no such inflamed
accusations
against you in my last e-mail. And as far as not being a member of your
list, it
might interest you that in a recent phone call with Jan, he expressed
doubts about
your gravity theory. Another person responded to my inquiry of any point
of
logic that I had made and stated that he saw no fault with my logic. If
this list or
that list is so on your side in all of this, then I challenge you to
convince me with
an e-mail writing campaign from the greater majority of whatever list you
encourage
to answer me. People are either too uninterested or too unwilling to get
involved
and from my impression of the size of these lists, I have hardly heard a
word in
active agreement or disagreement that your points are totally
substantiated. For
you to threaten my existence on this list is very petty. You might even
be able to
turn out the light but there are more than just this one room to operate
in.
As to my not answering your points and throwing up baloney as you
call
it, lets let the members of the list be the final arbiter. Let them
decide if they
really believe that I am only out to give you a hard time or whether or
not from
reading my posts they consider me to be somewhat informed, interested and

actively seeking out answers. You have thrown out so much propaganda
about
the principles you adopted form Cater that you automatically assume that
everyone agrees with you. Rodney doesn't, Jan is skeptical, I got
another e-mail
from someone who was familiar with your issues in which he made the
following
comments about my writings on the subject:

***************************************
Scott,

I took a look at your program, but I did not work well on my sisters
computer. The windows were to big for the computer screen and I got
the message that the computer did not have all the resources that it
needed. I guess that I would be able to correct the screen problem,
but I don't like to mess around with someone else's computer to much.
It seem like I can try out most of the program without having the
missing resource.

The best thing would be to get the Windows emulator to my mac.
Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that I have some problems and that
I in this moment in time doesn't find it worth a while to work with
them to properly test out your program.

I will say however that programs like the one you made is grate tools
to explore and present scientific concepts and ideas. I hope to use
more time learning programing and math so that I can be able to
similar programs in the future. It is absolutely essential in further
exploring Cater's and eventually other ideas.

Regarding you posts on gravity I want to say that I am unable to find
your logic wrong. If I am going to be able to challenge you and
present Cater's ideas as the most likely answer to what gravity is,
then I need much more time educating myself on the topic. I rather
shut up and listen, then to claim that I have found the "Truth".

Frode

**********************************

Frode seems to be saying if I read him right that if my logic is on a
sound enough
foundation, then more needs to be done to arrive at the truth. He didn't
say that he
is 100% convinced that your theory is right nor does it mean that he
might not arrive
at such opinion after further research. I wish you would show the same
attitude.

As far as the last several chapters of my prior e-mail, I asked that you
read on
since I dealt with the ramifications of your theory and even asked
questions
without criticizing. I fail to see why that section failed to merit a
response. You
stated nothing about mass which has been rendered weightless still being
active
in the outward expression of gravity from the Earth.

I also find fault in your analogy about the King having no clothes.
Gravity has
been a mystery to people for thousands of years. It is in no way
reflective
of the simple ability for the common human to determine ones state of
dress.

As to the tide question, I respect your data about the tides being
greater in the
arctic latitudes than the equatorial and it might interest you to know
that you
actually had an effect on me giving me pause to reconsider a rebuttal I
had
prepared for you on the topic with more care.

Your explanation on the sideways effect of the tides where the Earth is
more at
a perpendicular attitude needs more investigation. I took trigonometry
in college.
I am well versed in the aspect of sine and cosine and the affect that an
oblique
angle can have on a body or body in motion. With the Moon or Sun's
effect on
the arctic tides and mindful of the 22.5 degree tilt of the Earth's axis,
I would caution
you that this is not necessarily (note I am not insisting on this, it is
a question any
scientist would ask himself were he aware of it.) a resounding proof
that the tides
being higher on the perpendicular face toward the Moon proves that The
Sun and
Moon gravity radiation doesn't penetrate through the diameter of the
planet. You
have insisted on this point, but until one has dealt with the
trigonometry involved
a verdict cannot be announced.

Any read of a typical textbook on trigonometry will show you sample
problems
in which an automobile for insistence resting motionless on a 5 or 10
degree bank
will require a very small fraction of the weight of the vehicle to
prevent it from
sliding down hill. The same vehicle at a 90 degree angle (perpendicular
to the ground)
would require resistance equivalent to the entire weight of the car. You
are apparently
unaware of this distinction because I recognize you as intelligent
irregardless of your
opinion of my IQ and I doubt a discerning mind such as you obviously have
would
ignore such a consideration if it was brought to your attention.

The facts are simple. The tide waters of the high arctic are not only
closer to the
source of tide causality (Sun or Moon) in a gravitational sense, but the
very angle
that a hypothetical penetrating gravity radiation would encounter the
tide waters
on the opposite side of the planet at a more oblique angle could EASILY,
I say
again EASILY account for the tide level present in the Arctic which isn't
present
in the lower latitudes. To put it simply, Deans penchant for short
changing the
process by not recognizing and calculating what this effect would be puts
him in
no position to come down on me like a ton of bricks which he has been
doing
constantly of late even when I make a concerted effort not to reciprocate
in kind.

People in this world who are of any experience are not so easily weaned
from old patterns
of belief. I remember hearing stories of missionaries in the field who
try and try and for
whatever reason cannot quite reach the native peoples with their message
of God's love
toward man. Is it not their cross to bear to put up with it and exhibit
the long suffering
which Godly men and women of faith are famous for? The knack for
communicating
effectively is not in evidence when there is no resistance or debate but
when it is an
uphill battle. That is what we hollow earthers are confronted with.

This is my last paragraph today. I would ask Dean if I were to meet him
in person
how it is he can charge me with ignoring the issues strengthening his
argument, when
I have written a program I am willing (at the present time) of sharing
for free with any
who consent to a couple simple conditions (listed at bottom) and he
refuses to look
at it. He insists that I have not worked to broadcast my views when in
fact I just
came across the concept which we have been arguing about this week within
this
past week. I simply didn't have it before then! How am I guilty of not
sharing what
I don't have? He then wishes for me to change my strategy for sharing my
deeper
insights to suit his own convenience. This is proof that he himself is
not flexible to
the possibility of change he says I lack. I have waited with the
patience of Job for
him to look at my latest program edition. He seldom even offers me the
courtesy
of making note of my gracious offer. I ask that anyone on the list who
has read
our posts and has an opinion in support of or in opposition to the Cater
gravity theory
that Dean endorses, to please publish your opinion of my tone and whether
or not
you support my continued participation in this list. Be as critical as
you like.
Rebuttals to your words on my part will not be made!

Sincerly,

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!

  1. Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished
    work in progress, AND
  2. To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the
    program.
2

Subject: [allplanets-hollow] FORUM POLL

Dean,

It is you who is being accusatory now. I made no such inflamed accusations
against you in my last e-mail.

  • Scott,

  • I feel that you have argued insincerely.

    And as far as not being a member of your list, it
    might interest you that in a recent phone call with Jan, he expressed doubts about
    your gravity theory.

  • I am not surprised, I know that Jan doesn't think much of an electromagnetic source of gravity. In his book, though, he considers other concepts of gravity than the Newtonian, such as gravity as a push-down force occasioned bya flow of ether.

Another person responded to my inquiry of any point of
logic that I had made and stated that he saw no fault with my logic.

  • I did. I don't see how you can stipulate that conducive particles to gravity, which are isolated from the gravity-inducing radiation, are going to react to it. The particelswhich are weightless in space are exposed, I imagine, to the gravity-inducing radiation, it is just that thereis centrifugalforce to counter-balance. But the particle in the center of the shell is not even exposed to the gravity-inducing radiation, it is isolated. Its structure holds it in place to the rest of the shell. You can hardly comment on Cater if you haven't read his book. I haven't read or experimented much with your material, but then, I don't go around volunteering comments, either.

    If this list or
    that list is so on your side in all of this, then I challenge you to convince me with
    an e-mail writing campaign from the greater majority of whatever list you encourage
    to answer me. People are either too uninterested or too unwilling to get involved
    and from my impression of the size of these lists, I have hardly heard a word in
    active agreement or disagreement that your points are totally substantiated.

  • Most members are lurkers, they participate what they can.

For
you to threaten my existence on this list is very petty.

  • No it isn't. I am concerned with the functioning of the list as a sanctuary for the HET and alternative science, such as non-Newtonian gravity, Apollo hoax, Underground manipulation, etc. All schools of thought have always been completely open and exposed on this list, there has been no hiding of mistakes, no squirrling away research or information.

  • You put a lid on open discussion. Even when you don't throw a tantrum, your intolerant mood and unreasonableness puts a damper on things. " Either write up a bunch of equations or nobody can say anything." This seems to be your calculated agenda, to stamp out the notion of alternative gravity. It is just too ironic that the first time that I posted anything to Jan's list which wasn't just about the Arctic evidence, you jumped right in and started a big fight. Especially after that last tantrum, I doubt that many people are going to chirp up with their ideas or muse out loud. I hopethat you haven't dictated any agendas on that list, because it is an important subject matter for the HET.

  • Look at what happened when Norlan toasted everyone when we were talking about undergroundmanipulation of the surface world by secret societies like the Rosocrucians, and his church got mentioned. Any church is fair game, you can talk about the Pope in Rome all you want, or thehare Krishnas, or how Tibetan Buddhism is and has been hijacked, et cetera. But what happened? He flew off the handle, torched everyone, and the discussion stopped. Hazel got off the list. She was a joy while she was on; she posted about everything under the sun, but hey- she was new. Few will be inclined to participate in that subject up again.

  • And as long as you are on the list, with your absolute, acerbic wrangling, open gravity discussion will go down the drain, too. Just your presence in the background will put a lid on it. If you attack people viciously even once, it stands for a long time because it's like having a kill-joy in a party. You can't make a posting like the one you did and just come back later status quo ante bellum. I have to show that this can't go on anymore. I should have just unsubscribed you when you made that hateful posting, but I felt that I had to defend against the accusations first. And I have- I've shown that there are valid, non-Newtonian considerations upheld by some qualified people, that astronomers are seeing incongruencies and raising their voices, and I gave some good examples of non-correspondence with Newtonian gravity. So after I send this, I will unsubscribe you.

You might even be able to
turn out the light but there are more than just this one room to operate in.
As to my not answering your points and throwing up baloney as you call
it, lets let the members of the list be the final arbiter. Let them decide if they
really believe that I am only out to give you a hard time or whether or not from
reading my posts they consider me to be somewhat informed, interested and
actively seeking out answers.

  • The list is something that I have worked to build up and maintain. It is an environment that I have labored to create. Coming onto the list is not like walking down the street. It is like coming into my living room- everyone is my guest, and we all have responsibilities, both as host and guest. You are not going to take any votes in my living room. I will unsubscribe you for reasons of functionality.

    You have thrown out so much propaganda about
    the principles you adopted form Cater that you automatically assume that
    everyone agrees with you. Rodney doesn't, Jan is skeptical, I got another e-mail
    from someone who was familiar with your issues in which he made the following
    comments about my writings on the subject:

  • I know that Jan and Rodney don't go for the idea of gravity as an electromagnetic force, but they don't seem to be Newtonians, either. They have other ideas. Or maybe they are, I don'twant to speak for them.

  • One thing I will say, though, with all due respect for Jan, is that we shouldn'tmake him the Pope in Rome of the Hollow Earth Theory. There should be many balls of light. If not, then thought will become constricted if not inbred, and the HE movement, which is what it is becoming, will go down the road of a cult. Cults are active in the beginning, usually centered around a strong personality, but then later get run into the ground because once things become centralized, you only have to hijack one organization, so to speak.

  • I understand Frode's stance. We have spoken a bit, even before I started the list, he made certain things clear to me.
    ***************************************
    Snip Frode-

**********************************

Frode seems to be saying if I read him right that if my logic is on a sound enough
foundation, then more needs to be done to arrive at the truth. He didn't say that he
is 100% convinced that your theory is right nor does it mean that he might not arrive
at such opinion after further research. I wish you would show the same attitude.

  • You are a professional victim, you just pistol-whip with that victim stuff.

Snip

  • About tides at the higher altitudes- It actually isn't that much of an angle anyway because the Moon can sit as high as 28*. From there it has as much purview over the Northern half of Greenland, for example, as it does over the lower, equatorial region. So it really has something to do with -unopposed gravity. That high, there is enough flattening to make the Moon's gravity more " unopposed " than we might think. But straight down, against the bulk of the Earth, the Moon's gravity has its ability to penetrate diminished rather quickly.

  • I am kind of writing on the run right now, but I just wanted to get that concept off.

  • Ciao,

  • DD

Your explanation on the sideways effect of the tides where the Earth is more at
a perpendicular attitude needs more investigation. I took trigonometry in college.
I am well versed in the aspect of sine and cosine and the affect that an oblique
angle can have on a body or body in motion. With the Moon or Sun's effect on
the arctic tides and mindful of the 22.5 degree tilt of the Earth's axis, I would caution
you that this is not necessarily (note I am not insisting on this, it is a question any
scientist would ask himself were he aware of it.) a resounding proof that the tides
being higher on the perpendicular face toward the Moon proves that The Sun and
Moon gravity radiation doesn't penetrate through the diameter of the planet. You
have insisted on this point, but until one has dealt with the trigonometry involved
a verdict cannot be announced.

Any read of a typical textbook on trigonometry will show you sample problems
in which an automobile for insistence resting motionless on a 5 or 10 degree bank
will require a very small fraction of the weight of the vehicle to prevent it from
sliding down hill. The same vehicle at a 90 degree angle (perpendicular to the ground)
would require resistance equivalent to the entire weight of the car. You are apparently
unaware of this distinction because I recognize you as intelligent irregardless of your
opinion of my IQ and I doubt a discerning mind such as you obviously have would
ignore such a consideration if it was brought to your attention.

The facts are simple. The tide waters of the high arctic are not only closer to the
source of tide causality (Sun or Moon) in a gravitational sense, but the very angle
that a hypothetical penetrating gravity radiation would encounter the tide waters
on the opposite side of the planet at a more oblique angle could EASILY, I say
again EASILY account for the tide level present in the Arctic which isn't present
in the lower latitudes. To put it simply, Deans penchant for short changing the
process by not recognizing and calculating what this effect would be puts him in
no position to come down on me like a ton of bricks which he has been doing
constantly of late even when I make a concerted effort not to reciprocate in kind.

People in this world who are of any experience are not so easily weaned from old patterns
of belief. I remember hearing stories of missionaries in the field who try and try and for
whatever reason cannot quite reach the native peoples with their message of God's love
toward man. Is it not their cross to bear to put up with it and exhibit the long suffering
which Godly men and women of faith are famous for? The knack for communicating
effectively is not in evidence when there is no resistance or debate but when it is an
uphill battle. That is what we hollow earthers are confronted with.

This is my last paragraph today. I would ask Dean if I were to meet him in person
how it is he can charge me with ignoring the issues strengthening his argument, when
I have written a program I am willing (at the present time) of sharing for free with any
who consent to a couple simple conditions (listed at bottom) and he refuses to look
at it. He insists that I have not worked to broadcast my views when in fact I just
came across the concept which we have been arguing about this week within this
past week. I simply didn't have it before then! How am I guilty of not sharing what
I don't have? He then wishes for me to change my strategy for sharing my deeper
insights to suit his own convenience. This is proof that he himself is not flexible to
the possibility of change he says I lack. I have waited with the patience of Job for
him to look at my latest program edition. He seldom even offers me the courtesy
of making note of my gracious offer. I ask that anyone on the list who has read
our posts and has an opinion in support of or in opposition to the Cater gravity theory
that Dean endorses, to please publish your opinion of my tone and whether or not
you support my continued participation in this list. Be as critical as you like.
Rebuttals to your words on my part will not be made!

Sincerly,

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!

  1. Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished work in progress, AND
  2. To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the program.