List Members,
What specifically interests me about Cater's presentation on the
tides is the idea that gravity does not have unlimited penetration
through the Earth, in other terms, that gravity is not occasioned by
the density of mass. Obviously, there is mass throughout the Earth's shell and, if gravity does not penetrate, then it cannot be caused by mass.
Anyway, the idea is that if gravity were penetrating and synonymous with the existence of mass, one would be hard-pressed to establish the HET, as the shell of the Earth would have a tendency to collapse inward upon itself. Or else the cavity would have to be so small as to practically preclude the existence of any inner sun.
This is why it is important to study the nature of tides - the
concept of gravity which one accepts either makes or breaks the Hollow Earth Theory. I am open to chatting about the cause and nature of tides and gravity.
Here are some of the comments which Joseph H. Cater makes which are of interest:
“One of the most extraordinary examples of irrationalism in the
history of orthodox physics is the standard explanation of tides. In
this case, the discrepancy between reality and orthodox speculation
is so colossal it is one of the great enigmas in the history of human
thought, that it has not been challenged since the time of Newton.
The origin of the difficulty is an obvious flaw in the Newtonian
concept of gravitation. It is the idea that gravity effects have
unlimited penetration. In other words, there is no attenuation of
gravity effects other than that due to the inverse square law as it
passes through matter. This is an outrageous violation of the law of
conservation of energy.
...
It is now apparent that the idea of unlimited gravity penetration is
not valid. This means that the surface gravity effects of the Moon
penetrate the Earth for only very limited distances. Therefore, the
total acceleration that the surface gravity of the moon imparts to
the Earth, as a whole, is very small compared to the acceleration
force exerted on an object at the Earth's surface, such as a body of
water facing the moon. This means the water, not being fixed to the
Earth, is free to move across the surface by means of the Moon's
gravitational influence. The difference in gravitational
accelerations is so great that the acceleration given a body at the
surface follows very closely the inverse square law, since the
acceleration given the Earth as a whole can be disregarded.
...
The analysis of tides presented above forms the basis for proving
that the surface gravity of the Moon is greater than that on the sun.
Since the sun and the Moon have the same apparent diameters, viewed from the Earth, tidal effects produced by them are directly
proportional to their surface gravities. ... gravitational effects
vary inversely as the square of the distance away. Their [ the Sun
and the Moon ] apparent diameters are inversely proportional to the
distance; therefore, their apparent surface areas also vary inversely
as the square of the distance Since the moon is a greater factor in
producing tides, the conclusion that the Moon has a greater surface
gravity than the Sun is inescapable! To the orthodox mind this
produces insurmountable paradoxes”
List Members,
Cater goes on to explain that the rays of The Sun apparently contain less of the frequencies that induce gravity effects relative to the rays of The Moon,
The pathetic orthodox theory stipulates that the rays of The Moon penetrate that whole earthly orb and pull on the crust of the opposite side, such that this flexure creates tidal effects.
The Arctic waters, which are pulled laterally, which have no mass behind them from The Moon’s angle and which can reach almost nine meters; can merely exert almost a meter of pull against the ocean waters of the equatorial zone. So I ask; how is it that The Moon’s gravity can reach through the Earth’s mass and exert any pull at all against the crust - whose mantle is miles thick and consists of solid rock – if its tractive ability loses eight meters when we compare this ability between the sideways Arctic angle, having no mass behind it from that angle; and the direct pull it has to exert against the middle portion of the planet ?
Newtonian gravity doesn’t work. Gravity effects caused by electromagnetic radiations at certain frequencies can explain what “gravity caused by mass” cannot.
Dean
Related thread: The greatest density of the air is found a few miles below the surface of the ocean — Continues the July 2019 Cater density/gravity posts