For some time I have noted discussion of a theory or theories
by this man Cater. I have been invested in studying other things and
though it is my policy to try to keep abreast of everything that has to
do with the hollow earth theory and related issues such as gravity, I
am way behind in following up on this soft particle physics concept
of his.
If I were to undertake a serious examination of Mr. Caters ideas
would I find that he has a quantifiable theory which can actually measure
gravity in the same way the Newtonian mass formula F = GMm/R^2
at least attempts to. I know there seems to be evidence for the idea
that this theory of the attraction between masses is flawed but does
Mr. Cater provide the formulas that would convince one that his ideas
stand up to a thorough analysis? I don't mean this as a criticism.
Let me know what you think about it.
Scott
···
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
I am under the impression that the question doesn't have to do with the
gravitational effect of one body upon another. Rather, the question has to
do with the nature of gravity, the cause, and consequently, how it actually
acts beneath the surface, where it has never been directly experienced by
us.
With this said, it would be better for me to defer this question to Frode.
Dean
···
Dean,
For some time I have noted discussion of a theory or theories
by this man Cater. I have been invested in studying other things and
though it is my policy to try to keep abreast of everything that has to
do with the hollow earth theory and related issues such as gravity, I
am way behind in following up on this soft particle physics concept
of his.
If I were to undertake a serious examination of Mr. Caters ideas
would I find that he has a quantifiable theory which can actually measure
gravity in the same way the Newtonian mass formula F = GMm/R^2
at least attempts to. I know there seems to be evidence for the idea
that this theory of the attraction between masses is flawed but does
Mr. Cater provide the formulas that would convince one that his ideas
stand up to a thorough analysis? I don't mean this as a criticism.
The gravitational constant G will according to Cater only work with bodies up to a certain size. Beyond that size the surface gravity will be that same. The reason for that is first and foremost due to the penetration ability of the gravity radiation. There is also an aspect of cancelation due to Soft-Particle dynamics going on. This factors are for sure quantifiable, but Cater does not go so much into that in his books. I think he gives an estimate of the penetration ability of the gravitation radiation, I have to look it up.
I don't know if this helps you or not, I am a little confused of what you are looking for, maybe you could be more specific of why formulas would be convincing