gelogy and Gravity.

[Gerry_Forster]

Hi Dean and All.

To quickly respond to your last message, Dean, in which you asked me: *"What is the the difference between a fault, submerged mountain ridge and a plate boundry. Is a crustal fault does the same as a mountain ridge? Or is a plate boundry completely different. The meaning of the term plate boundry is obvious to me, of course." *

Well, Dean, I already explained that as well as I could in my original message, so rather than try all over again, I'll refer you to the following sites, which will explain the present idea of orthodox Plate Tectonics, which should explain this whole business much better than I apparently can. Just check out these three sites:

Plate Tectonics - A Unifying Scientific Theory

http://www.muohio.edu/aha/platetectonics/tectonics-5.html

..and its following sections. (Fully illustrated with diagrams!)

Continental Drift & Plate Tectonics.

http://vishnu.glg.nau.edu/people/jhw/GLG101/Tectonics.html

Plate Tectonics.

http://www.huxley.ic.ac.uk/Local/EarthSciUG/ESSecondYr/GEODYN/cdri

I think you should derive sufficient background data about the current official geological position on this subject from these three alone to answer all your queries, but there are lots of other similar sites, of course.

In answer to *your question: "which plates come together above the New Siberian Islands?" * I can only tell you that, as far as can presently be discovered, they are the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate, although there's some growing evidence that the "Nansen Cordillera" section of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge - (which, incidentally, is not an actual mountain ridge in the general dry-land "mountain-range" sense of the term, but rather a build-up of solidified lava), - is possibly still in the process of running on down through eastern Siberia to connect up with the top western corner of the Pacific Plate, which lies to the east of the Kamchatka Peninsula.

As to your misgivings about my suggestion that the molten lava which issues from volcanoes and earth fissures might be produced by the heat of atomic reactions taking place deep within the crust, and your question: *"Why wouldn't the the fuels which power such atomic activity be spent by now?" * I can only reply by asking a question in return: Why is uranium still such a powerful source of radioactivity? It has been buried deep in the earth for billions of years, yet it is still a highly fissile element!"

Unlike yourself, Dean, and others in the group, I haven't had the opportunity to read the works of Mr.J.Cater, so I haven't fallen under his strange influence. for which I'm grateful, as I much prefer to try and come up with my own concepts and philosophies about such abstruse matters!

Please do not think that I mean any disrespect toward Mr. Cater, who sounds like a very knowlegable man, but some of his concepts, as relayed through yourself, do sound a little "off-beat" to me - especially with regard to his views upon gravitation! As far as I'm concerned the "force of gravity" (or whatever other name you wish to call it) still applies today exactly as it did in Newton's time. Thus a falling body still heads earthward at the same accelerating rate of 32 feet per second per second. In other words, if an object is dropped from the top of a skyscraper, it will accelerate at the rate of 32 feet per second per second, so that after two seconds it will have fallen 64 feet, and after three seconds it will have fallen 144 feet. This undeniable law has been well and truly proved via trials involving free-falling parachutists. So If anyone refutes the current force of gravity - Newtonian or whatever - I can only suggest that they try jumping out of an airplane (or a balloon) at a few thousand feet altitude ( without a parachute, of course) and note the speed at which they finally hit the deck!

I just finished reading that article by David M. Summers, of "Exposure" magazine , submitted by "Kiara Buguedy", and I was astounded at the conclusions drawn by French and US engineers from the 'plumb-bobs and mineshafts' experiment in which the gravitational divergence of the two suspended plumb-bobs indicated that the centre of the Earth's gravity was 4000 miles up in space! And, following simple logic, if this same experiment were then to be repeated by, say, the Chinese, on the other side of the globe, it would show the centre of gravity to be 4000 miles upwards in what would essentially be the diametrically opposite direction!

This means that the centre of gravity, according to the two tests combined, would appear to be located on a spherical "surface" 16,000 miles in diameter! In short, as David Summers points out, (according to the only conclusions one can draw from this quite crazy experiment) the centre of gravity of our planet must therefore be 4000 miles over our heads from any place on the Earth's surface!

David then, in his conclusion, goes on to say: *"Could it be that there is no such thing as "Attraction of mass"? * I can only remark that If anyone believes there isn't, I must refer them back to the result of leaping out of a plane! SPLAT!!

On that note, Dean, and people, I'll close this epistle, and continue with my own objective search for the truth about the inner earth. But preferably not as a Caterite! If I have offended any of you by any of my remarks or responses above, or if you feel that I am "rocking the boat" with my frankness, please let me know and I will retire graciously from the scene!

Best Regards

Gerry

[deandddd]

Jerry,

Thanks for the site recommendations

In relation to your feelings about the relation of gravity to mass, I just have to disagree. Clouds have much more mass compared to the atmosphere, the air around them, and they do not fall. Clouds don't have to jump out of an airplane, they already are outside of airplanes, and neither the viscosity of air nor air resistance can explain the fact that they don't fall.

And although it seems that the mass/gravity of the Sun holds the planets in orbit, its gravity hardly acts on tides.

Theory has to fit the observations. If observation refutes theory ever day, on such a scale and with such frequency, then I think that the natural conclusion is to go back to the drawing board. It is not enough that very often the correspondence seems to be there, a cause and effect relationship seems to be there; such a causitive relationship would have to exist all the time, in all circumstances, certainly in relation to the largest objects in our sky and in the solar system. But this idea that gravity is caused by mass is so woven into our understanding that it just seems very difficult for people to go be critical of it.

There is nothing wrong with learning from another person, such as Cater. If you just find out on your own, then you are limited by your own parameters. If I didn't know about him I wouldn't have insight into these othe concepts.

Anyway, this is an ongoing discussion on this list. You are welcome to say anything you like on the matter, loyal opposition is welcome!

Dean

[Frode]

A look at Gravity.
Hi all,

There is no doubt about the existence of gravity. To jump out of
an air plane will end with a SPLAT! As pointed out by Garry. So we all
agree that gravity exist, but we do not agree on what gravity is or
what is causing it. Does matter radiate gravitons? Or does matter bend
space and time? Has gravity anything to do with charge? Etc.

Since the theories around gravity is not so easy to understand
one have the tendency to just accept what is generally accepted by
scientists. I for one have great difficulties withe the concept of
bent time and space. I could write a lot about why this ides is even
more stupid then believing in a flat earth, but I will not waste
time on that. I just want to point out that this idea is one of the
main reason for making physics inaccessible to the ordinary man and
woman.

So what about gravitons (a particle that mediate gravity)? There
is good reasons to belive so, and I found something interesting in
another discussion group that probably is the best confirmation so
fare :

       From:

Stephen Speicher <sjs@c...>

       Date: Wed

Sep 13, 2000 00:51am

       Subject:

Possible Evidence for Gravitons

       From:

Stephen Speicher

       The TEW

completely rejects the standard general relativistic view

       that

gravity is the structure of the geometry of spacetime,

       namely

the structure of the curved spacetime due to massive

       objects. 

In his 1996 paper, Lewis Little gives the briefest of

       sketches

regarding how the TEW explains general relativity,

       including

the role of graviton particles, their elementary waves,

       and their

interactions.

       Over the

years there have been a series of reports and

experiments which can be loosely grouped together under the name

       of

gravity shielding. In various ways, a shielding affect from

gravitational influences, due to a host of possible sources, is

       reported.

The work in this area ranges from investigation of

       rotating

superconducting ceramic discs in the laboratory, to

astronomical warp drives. I personally consider most of this work

       to range

from borderline science, to kooksville.

       However,

a recent paper in a mainstream Journal offers some

interesting evidence for a measured effect of gravitational

       changes

during a solar eclipse. The premise here would be that,

       if

graviton particles do exist, the imposition of the Moon

       between

the Sun during eclipse would partially shield the

gravitational influence of the Sun on the Earth through

absorption of gravitons, enough to measure the variation.

       On March

9, 1997 there was a total eclipse of the Sun experienced

       in

China. An extremely accurate gravimeter was used to measure

       any

variations of vertical gravitational acceleration within a

       very high

precision. The equipment was protected from any other

environmental effects, and the measured area was kept

undisturbed. Readings were taken continuously several days before

       the

eclipse, during the eclipse, and several days afterwards.

       While the

preceeding and following readings remained nearly

       constant,

a clear and significant decrease in gravity was

       recorded

during first and last contact of the eclipse.

       At best

this data can be considered beginning evidence to

       validate

the concept of graviton particles. If the results are to

       be

believed, this is certainly provocative enough to spur on

additional experimental research to discover more about this

       property

of gravitation. Although this is far, far from

conclusive, it is some evidence which supports Lewis Little's

supposition of graviton particles in the TEW.

       The

reference is:

"Precise measurement of gravity variations during a solar

eclipse", Qian-shen Wang et al, Physical Review D, Volume
62,

       041101,

August 15, 2000.

···

=========================================================

[Moderator: Subject line altered.]

=========================================================

I asked about electric charge in relation to gravity. Is there a
relationship between the two? Cater believes so, but he is not the
only one. Here is a link:

http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Index.htm

Some time ago when I was trying to find some confirmations for
Cater's theory I found this picture in a book called "Nature's
Electricity" by Charles K. Adams.

Why is negative ions flowing upwards while the positive are
flowing towards earth. I have tried to find a conventional explanation
for this but I can't, the book did not give one. The Van Allan belt is
also a mystery here. Why is our earth surrounded by a cloud of mainly
negatively charged particles? Can it be that gravity attracts positive
charge and repel negative charge?

Ok! This was some bits and pieces. Please ask if something is not
so clear. I will go into more stuff related to Cater and gravity later
for the purpose of showing that there are reasons for taking Cater
seriously.

Frode