Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Cater Comments on Lipmann
Dean (from Dick Fojut)... I've read your following post from Cater
twice now and still am not able to form a PICTURE in my mind of how
what he says relates to the world I see around me. I do not
understand what Cater has written. Possibly my mind is too tired
tonight to grasp it. I assume he had clear examples in his mind when
he wrote the paragraphs below. Can YOU explain Cater in simpler terms
and give me some practical examples?
Like practical examples to explain for me some of the following:
- How does what he says below affect the many particles (made up of
atomic elements with their electrons, protons, etc.) composing
Earth's atmosphere?
-
Dick,
-
If matter naturally has a slight, positive charge, and gravity
fields are negative, then this would explain the tendency for air to
fall. The negative-positive attraction would explain why our
atmophere is dense at the surface. the OlympusMons photo which Daniel
Ross has, which shows darker color at the top ( elevation 15 miles ),
suggests that the atmosphere on Mars has higher ionization (
negative ) , such that its density is more spread out and supports
life at high altitudes.
- And especially how does it affect some of the "fine dust" particles
Cater thinks can "buoyantly" rise and escape into outer space?
- If those particles acquire a negative charge from the water
particles to which they become attached, only then Cater stipulates
that they may escape the immediate atmosphere, although I imagine
that they would get caught up in the Van Allen belts and eventually
come back down.
- How does it cause fine particles and grosser elemental objects of
all sizes in the atmosphere, to be drawn down to the surface?
- He is saying that those particles are possessed ofpositive
charges, ever so slight. This is something that Lipmann stumbled
upon, and it was covered up.
- Or repelled from the surface if that is possible?
- In the case of clouds, yes, because they have a net negative
charge.
- How does it affect Earth's physical surface itself and the crustal
rock layers below our feet, (the so-called "force of gravity") short
of that 50 mile distance?
- Well, the gravity-inducing radiation creates gravity effects in
that strata. The comment below simply refers to the fact that matter
is naturally positively charged, and that it gets attracted by the
negative gravity field.
- How does it affect CENTRIFUGAL FORCE, if it does?
- I guess that they co-exist.
- How does it affect attraction and repulsion in the Sun-Earth
relationship?
- Well, it is the gravity-inducing radiation, created in the Earth,
which holds the Earth in orbit around the Sun. It has a frontal,
outward attraction only.
- And how does it negate Newton's mass notions? Etc., etc., etc.
- It doesn't so much affect the observed gravitational attraction of
one body to another. It is more a matter of defining source and
cause. Also, it is a matter of how gravity acts within a sphere.
Within a sphere, a gravity-inducing radiation would diminish. So this
notion of gravity allows us to decclare this and explain why. But the
effect of one body upon another doesn't change because we define
gravity as an electromagnetic radiation.
At least a FEW practical examples explaining SUCH questions as the
above will be appreciated.
- Besides clouds not falling, what do you think of Cater's missile
example:
"
Missle Loss in Space Explained
The physics of levitation was demonstrated in part when missles were
found to have lost most of their original weight after traveling
through the Van Allen Radiation Belt and returning to Earth. The
mystery deepened when this weight loss continued for some time, and
containers in which pieces of the missle were placed also lost
weight. This event was hushed up in keeping with standard policy
concerning things which are damaging to orthodox concepts. The
radiations belts contain high concentrations of negative charges of
all kinds, from hard electrons to the very soft ones.
The missle became impregnated with negative charges as it passed
through this region. Since they are of varying types, it was able to
absorb an abnormal quantity. The more penetrating softer particles
opened the door for the harder particles to enter. A similar
principle is involved in the operation of a transformer .... Because
the missle continued to lose weight, and was evidently losing
particles which originally caused it to lose weight, a paradox
arises. The loss of weight of the container, in which pieces of the
missle were placed, which would mean that the pieces were discharging
some of the negative charges they had picked up in the radiation
belt, and were then absorbed by the container. "
Got to go.
Later Dick!
Dean
- Dick
Joseph H. Cater
" THE NATURE OF GRAVITY
The prerequisite for understanding the gravitational process is the
realization that supposedly uncharged atoms and molecules are not
electrically neutral, but possess a positive charge. It has always
been asssumed, since the days of Newton that inertia is directly
proportional to mass. This has been shown to be incorrect. Inertia is
dependent upon total charge; therefore, independent of mass. It
follows that an atom has less inertia than any of the fundamental
particles of which it is comprised! The small, overall charge of an
atom is the result of the balancing out of positive and negative
charges. Its slight ability to generate a magnetic field for a net
increase or velocity is due to electrons following the left-hand
rule, while prototas follow the right-hand rule. Its inertia is
limited because of the cancellation of magnetic fields or the
constituent electrons and protons.
Stripping electrons from an atom will give it a strong positive
charge. This means that it will have greater inertia than before,
although less mass.
Adding electrons will also increase its inertial properties, if the
total resultant charge is greater than the original positive charge
Otherwise, adding electrons will reduce the inertial properties, and
in this case, increasing the total mass reduces them.
After the author came to this conclusion, he was later gratifed to
learn a former Nobel prize winner, Gabriel Lipmann, confirmed this
principal in the late ninteenth century. Lippman found that bodies
in the charged state offered a greater resistance to acceleration
than in the uncharged state. He called it " the inertia of static
electricity." It is not surprising that this monumental discovery was
ignored, since it threatened to topple cherished physical concepts.
Ironically, Lipmann later received the Nobel Prize for another
comparatively insignificant discovery."
http://www.healthresearchbooks.com/Authors/joseph_cater.htm
Members-
Obviously, if matter is possessed of a net positive charge, and
gravity effects are due to a negatively charged radiation, we then
have the ingrediants forgravity.
Dharma/Dean