IT PENETRATES

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
, , , ,
1

Dean,

I was out doing some manual labor and I happened upon a scheme
that completely refutes your idea about the 50 mile plus depth in the
earth where it has been your contention that gravity radiation from the
sun will not penetrate.
You may recall but I will go over it again for those members of
the
list who may not have read this before. The on going discussion between
Dean and I has dealt with the nature of gravity. I believe that although

gravity may be a type of force which can come from different conditions,
for all intents and purposes the inert nature of all matter is conducive
to
the influence of gravity unless artificially manipulated. It may well be
and
I do believe that gravity can be artificially generated. This might have

something to do with an electromagnetically induced gravity field which
man on this planet has yet to master. UFO's are one example. If memory
serves, that Robert Lazar story about how he worked on alien craft at
area 51 is another story about artificial gravity. With Lazar, he stated

that gravity was much akin to microwaves which could be produced through
machinery aboard those alien craft, but I digress.

In this diagram you see the orbit of the earth around the sun
except
that it isn't to scale and the orbit is not perfectly round. For
simplicity we
will use a perfectly round orbit:

Inertia is defined as the tendency
for objects in motion to remain in motion as well as the tendency of an
object at rest to remain at rest until it is acted on by an outside
influence.
This is undeniable. It shows up when a person stomps on the gas in an
automobile to speed up and when they slam on the brakes to stop.

Instead of a planet, lets use an alternate object as a satellite. We
will
use a single atom of hydrogen. Any object would do but hydrogen is my
choice since there is one proton and one neutron and can be considered
to have an atomic weight of 1.0. A while back I told Dean that an
alternate
way to consider gravity is by assuming that a universal subatomic
particle
inside of the atom is why groups or set of atoms all behave in a similar
way.

In a vacuum chamber at sea level a feather and a rock both fall to the
ground at the same rate, but instead of wondering why each body with
so great a difference in both density and mass behave exactly alike, it
is my contention that the two objects are both just different multiples
of a universal gravity conductive subatomic particle all behaving alike.

This allows for the Sun emitting a constant gravity force on objects of
differing mass and yet having the same result of motion. The larger
body having larger mass and thus greater inertia against changes in
motion or acceleration needs to apply all of its CSPs (conductive
subatomic particles) in combination with the Suns force to allow bodies
of diverse size to orbit at the same mean radius and eccentricity were

they placed there.

Logically, we have seen that an orbiting planet is merely an enormous
collection of the same exact CSP such that we would have to arrive at
differing mass products since the equation for the mass of a planet is
nothing more than the collective efforts of the entire CSPs that that
planet body has.

If the gravitational force of the Sun were magically switched off, the
effect
on our Earth would be for it to begin moving in a straight line instead
of
being bent into its orbit of the Sun. The law of inertia would demand
this.

Every CSP to gravity is also its own little tiny mass which is also
subject
to the laws of inertia. Therefore it is equally logical to assume that
the
gravitational force of the Sun must work to counter the inertia of all
the
Earth's component CSPs to keep them from flying off in a straight line.
Each CSP interacts with the Sun gravitationally speaking to perform this
work.

This places the Cater/Dean theory of gravitational radiation from the Sun
only penetrating 50+ miles into the crust of the outer surface in deep
trouble, for, if it were not for the Sun's gravitational force
penetrating the
entire Earth, we would have the following:

The areas in red is the 50 mile + area
of the Earth which Dean states are effective with the Sun in producing a
gravity
force pulling the Earth to the Sun. The gray area is symbolic of a shell
or
"cork" material as Dean was recently quoted as describing it. (areas are
not
to scale but you get the idea.) This so called cork if brought to the
surface would
be equivalent of a very heavy rock or steel which can be made on the
surface.
It would still respond to the laws of gravity but would also respond to
the laws
of inertia.
My proof that Dean is wrong is in the inequality of active mass
working
in coordination with the Sun to cause the planet to fall into the sun
which is
thus unequal to the total amount of CSPs that make up the planet and are
subject to the laws of inertia. We would have a situation where the
gravity force
normally required to work on a one to one basis with centrifugal force to
maintain
a stable orbit would be greatly overwhelmed by the total amount of "cork"
mass
of the planet which would still follow the rules of inertia but not
interact with the
Sun producing a required balance in gravitational response as in the
example of
the hydrogen atom orbiting the Sun where the two forces equal each other.

This scenario will not happen thankfully. All forces are equal
in the real
world. For the "cork" material which by the way makes up the lions
percentage
of strata within the Earth, a non penetrating gravity radiation would not
be able
to reach and interact with it.
No interaction means that there would be no chance of the Earth
remaining in orbit where it is supposed to be. No gravitational response
can
be expected from the "cork" according to Dean and that means that no
force
would exist to stop the cork moving at 18.5 miles per second from moving
away from the Sun. Another indication that he believes this is his
adoption
of Mr. Cater's idea that the Sun's gravitational "radiation" doesn't
penetrate
the entire diameter of the Earth to effect the tides on the far side or
night side
of the planet. The inertia might be defined as

Force = mass * velocity (or acceleration)

This is a very real and consistent effect. We arrive at the
inescapable
conclusion that there would be insufficient mass actually reacting to the
Sun's
gravity to exactly counter the cork matters inertial tendency to move
away
from the Sun in a straight line and initially in a perpendicular vector.

The only thing I can conceive of that would nullify my proof that
Dean
is wrong would be if the inner gray or cork area of the Earth were
carrying
the right amount of electricity on the order of 10 to the 14th power
volts.
This amount of voltage has been shown in one book and one laboratory
experiment to cause matter to loose its inertia. This in itself is very
problematic.
The very book Dean references in support of the Cater theories shows us
that there IS no such hyper voltage current of electricity present, at
least
not to the level of penetration that he and the guide descended to. I
included
this to show how I have considered every angle and even tried briefly to
question my own scientific reasoning. It would be pleasing to see Dean
do
so as well!

#:^)

I think that this is the siren song and death knell to this idea
about
gravity radiation from the Sun not penetrating all the way through the
planet.
If it doesn't, then all life on Earth would never have happened.

Scott

Yahoo Groups removed 4 attachments from this message: match.bmp (image/bmp), un.bmp (image/bmp), match.bmp (image/bmp), un.bmp (image/bmp)

2

To: Scott

From: Dean

You have asked me to take a look at your specific theory of gravity. I printed out one old e-mail which you sent me at the beginning of the year, I guess it was. You talked about the ocean water assuming a slightly steeper relation to the sun than the barrycenter, and how this should cause extra acceleration and bring about the tides.

I still don't see how this, specifically, establishes or negates Newtonian gravity, i.e., gravity caused by mass. You may have realized something new about the way in which gravity acts in between two " exterior " bodies, but I think that gravity as an electromagnetic force would act in the same way were an object able to assume its own orbit of the Sun while still a member or part of the mass of the Earth.

Actually, Cater's comments about the tides disproving Newtonian gravity still stand. The fact that water, not being fixed to the Earth, receives a different acceleration than the planet as a whole indicates that gravity is not penetrating neither completely, nor uniformly, as it would do if gravity were synonamous with matter, all the way through the Earth's globe.

If gravity were due to charge and frequency of radiation, though, then gravity would begin to drop off with penetration. This would account for the difference in acceleration which the water on the Earth's surface receives, and the acceleration which the rest of the planet exhibits.

If the Moon's gravity were to penetrate the Earth as a whole, as it would if gravity were able to maintain its correspondence to mass all the way through, then the Moon's gravity might actually be responsible for the tidal bulge on the opposite side of the Earth. But the Moon doesn't even have the force to strongly affect the tides directly below it- the Moon's orbit intersects the plane of the Earth's equator at 28 * North and 28 * South; the Moon's orbit stays within that band. Even so, the tides caused directly below the moon, in the equatorial regions, is much less that at the polar extremes. The tides rise something like 3 meters at the equator, and as much as 8 near the poles! This is because the Moon can exert tractive, horizontal force towards the poles which is unopposed by the gravity of the Earth, while its direct force below experiences opposition and doesn't carry through. What to speak, then, of the Earth's gravity penetrating the entire planet and pulling it in so much that the water of the far side bulges out, as Newtonian theory stipulates. The Newtonian concept does not correspond to observation.

Gravity doesn't penetrate enough to cause any tidal bulges on the far side, and again, the fact that the ocean water accelerates differently than the rest of the planet, on the near side to the Moon, is specifically caused by the fact that the Moon's gravity doesn't penetrate uniformly, and that the oceans receive a greater acceleration than the rest of the planet. Gravity only corresponds to mass in front of your eyeballs, ( excluding clouds )- in the depths below the surface of a planet, the scenario changes because the frequency doesn't reach, it diminishes.

3

Dean,

Just a quick note. I do not in any fashion concede that Cater's
tide
idea either proves that gravity does not penetrate all the way through
the
shell of the earth or, helps to demolish Newton. The tide question is
one
of great complexity and you would realize this were you of a similar mind

set as I am to try to prove things with a mathematical approach. My
program
has a section dealing with this but it only has a few graphical
animations at
the moment and is a long way from complete. Even though I believe that
a comprehensive study of the tides will prove Cater wrong, I don't wear
this belief like a chip on my shoulder until I have put my money where
my mouth is and actually arrived at irrefutable mathematical finality, I
feel
that I have been logical but for me I must add additional fortifications
to my
mathematics to achieve the dominant position you so boldly take with an
approach of logic but no mathematical proof.
I just got an e-mail from Matthew Taylor and I agree that he
bears
no obligation to agree with my ideas unless he were to concede of course
that my mathematical technique was correct. Otherwise, he thought that
such an approach certainly had its place and could be of value to us all.
He stated that I was unique in the way I have striven to try to prove
things
via a mathematical approach while everyone else uses logic. This amuses
me no end! Logic will be more impressive overall if it is successfully
combined with a high integrity of mathematical analysis. It should be
noted
that my logical processes lie at the very core of my calculations. You
cannot very well construct a mathematical model without using logic!
Where
do you guys get the notion that with me logic isn't involved?
Now to what I wished to address to you with this e-mail. I will
state nothing further until I receive your comments to my e-mail
presentation
that had the words "IT PENETRATES" in the subject line. You sent me a
reaction to an old e-mail yet your response indicated that it was
pertinent
to or regarding what I wrote in the "IT PENETRATES" e-mail. In other
words, I realize and accept that one or the other of us may choose to
disagree peacefully with the other about anything and everything, but in
a nutshell, "Would you please stay on topic and discuss the points that
I made and not ideas I conveyed to you months ago." I see what you
were doing by dragging up the old e-mail about the barrycenter which
was to defend the concept of a lack of penetration. It looks to me
like you had no adequate defense of my very logical points in my most
recent e-mail. This idea is a stand alone concept that to my reasoning
successfully dismantles the Cater theory.
I am sure you didn't intend this but when you don't stay on
topic,
it gives me the notion that you had no successful comeback or defense
against the concepts and ideas that I presented. I would only guess that
you don't agree with my reasoning, but it would be good of you to tell
me why that is.

Please address the topic at hand. Thank You,

Scott

4

Scott,

I had prepared my last e-mail before receiving the " IT PENETRATES "
e-mail from you. I sent off what I had, and printed out " IT
PENETRATES." I´ll read it today, and maybe respond by tonight.

DD

5

Subject: [allplanets-hollow] IT PENETRATES

A while back I told Dean that an alternate

way to consider gravity is by assuming that a universal subatomic particle

inside of the atom is why groups or set of atoms all behave in a similar way.

In a vacuum chamber at sea level a feather and a rock both fall to the

ground at the same rate, but instead of wondering why each body with

so great a difference in both density and mass behave exactly alike, it

is my contention that the two objects are both just different multiples

of a universal gravity conductive subatomic particle all behaving alike.

  • Scott,

  • This is fine so far, you have a " contention," that gravity effects occur in relation to mass, the mass being subatomic particles. You offer the example of equal velocity of gravity effects, an equal rate of fall, for one object which is denser than the other. You attribute this equal rate of fall to gravity acting on a subatomic level, not on the object as a whole unit of a given density.

  • First of all, as I have already quoted, Mr. Cater also corresponds gravity to mass, up to a caertain diameter of body- he stipulates a diameter of 150 miles. After that, gravity acts differently, so to speak.

  • But the nature of the gravity effects on an individual, subatomic particle can also be explained by gravity as an electromagnetic radiation because each particle radiated will have its charge, of course. Charged radiated particles are also conductive. Mr. Cater explains " conductive " in relation to what, i.e., the electromagnetic radiation between radar and infrared. You don't do this, so far you just contend that there are subatomic particles in every matter conducise to gravity, and you don't define gravity except to say that it is mass. It may be synonamous with mass, it may, according to you and Newton, always correspond to mass. Ok, but it is not mass because mass does not reach across space. How does the " action at a distance " take place? Mr. Cater explainsthat the gravity-inducing radiation is electrical frontally, and explains how in Chapter Twelve of his book. You are making several " contentions " here for which you offer no explanation. Just that it is that way, that certain subatomic particles are conduciveto gravity, but you don't explain the nature of the particles, the nature of gravity or the way in which it covers distance except to say that " gravity is mass," which is oversimplistic. And again, individually charged particles in Mr. Cater'segravity-as-an-electrostactic force model also explains the equal rate of fall.

  • Just because you've perceived that gravity is acting on a level of individual particles or subatomic ones, all behaving alike, you ignore all the points which I make above, and the alternative explanation, and empower yourself in some way to claim some kind of victory.

This allows for the Sun emitting a constant gravity force on objects of

differing mass and yet having the same result of motion. The larger

body having larger mass and thus greater inertia against changes in

motion or acceleration needs to apply all of its CSPs (conductive

subatomic particles) in combination with the Suns force to allow bodies

of diverse size to orbit at the same mean radius and eccentricity were

they placed there.

  • This is the same as Newton saying that gravity effects caused by mass extend to the center of an orb. Without knowing what is causingthe gravity, however, you cannot say that this is what is going on. the scheme of gravity as an electromagnetic force explains the phenomonon of planets remaining in orbit, also.

Logically, we have seen that an orbiting planet is merely an enormous

collection of the same exact CSP such that we would have to arrive at

differing mass products since the equation for the mass of a planet is

nothing more than the collective efforts of the entire CSPs that that

planet body has.

  • But this is only a contention of yours, that all CSPs, as you call them, come to be players in relation to gravity effects. And CSPs in relation to what I don't know because you haven't defined gravity, nor how gravity would reach across space to the CSP of a subatomic particle.

If the gravitational force of the Sun were magically switched off, the effect

on our Earth would be for it to begin moving in a straight line instead of

being bent into its orbit of the Sun. The law of inertia would demand this.

Every CSP to gravity is also its own little tiny mass which is also subject

to the laws of inertia. Therefore it is equally logical to assume that the

gravitational force of the Sun must work to counter the inertia of all the

Earth's component CSPs to keep them from flying off in a straight line.

Each CSP interacts with the Sun gravitationally speaking to perform this

work.

This places the Cater/Dean theory of gravitational radiation from the Sun

only penetrating 50+ miles into the crust of the outer surface in deep

trouble,

  • Not so- What you are starting to do- and what you will continue to do until the end off this letter- is hold Mr. Cater's scheme up to your contention, stipulate in a de facto way that Mr. Cater's gravity scheme must obey your mere contention and that if it doesn't, that it is wrong. But you are the one who says that " the gravitational force of the Sun must work to counter the inertia of all the Earth's component CSPs."This is what I meant when I said that you had somehow empowered yourself just because you recognize that gravity is conducive to individual particles which all behave alike. Mr. Cater's charged particle is also conducive to gravity ( and he defined what gravity is and how action at a distance takes place ). But in his model heexplains that the gravity-inducing radiation does not reach all of the mass of the Earth, therefore they have no " weight," no inertia. That is why they are " cork-like," so to speak. You recognize this in the course of your letter, that the particles of matter in the Earth's interior, beyond the reach of the gravity-inducing radiation, become light, you even use the word " cork,"but then you go on to say that this matter has to possesinertia. Why? What kind of contradiction is this? the reason that rock from the interior would become light like cork is exactly because rock is becoming weightless the further one penetrates, and a zone of zero gravity has been mentioned by me in the presentation of Mr. Cater's theory, also. But you say that the " cork mass of the planet would still follow the rules of inertia." Again, this is a contradiction. You just invent any contradiction, then set up a straw man to knock him down.

for, if it were not for the Sun's gravitational force penetrating the

entire Earth, we would have the following:

The areas in red is the 50 mile + area

of the Earth which Dean states are effective with the Sun in producing a gravity

force pulling the Earth to the Sun. The gray area is symbolic of a shell or

"cork" material as Dean was recently quoted as describing it. (areas are not

to scale but you get the idea.) This so called cork if brought to the surface would

be equivalent of a very heavy rock or steel which can be made on the surface.

It would still respond to the laws of gravity but would also respond to the laws

of inertia.

  • Again, if the gravity inducing radiation doesn't penetrate to the grey area, then how come the mass there has to exhibit inertia? You have invented this contention, and I can only assume that you are trying to impose it on a scheme which is already congruent and all-inclusive in its explanation of phenomena.

My proof that Dean is wrong is in the inequality of active mass working

in coordination with the Sun to cause the planet to fall into the sun which is

thus unequal to the total amount of CSPs that make up the planet and are

subject to the laws of inertia.

  • Again, there is no inertia where gravity doesn't exist. Matter outside the reach of the gravity-inducing radiation exhibits no weight.

We would have a situation where the gravity force

normally required to work on a one to one basis with centrifugal force to maintain

a stable orbit would be greatly overwhelmed by the total amount of "cork" mass

of the planet which would still follow the rules of inertia

  • The " cork " mass would not follow the rules of inertia, and wouldnot overwhelm any gravity force.

but not interact with the

Sun producing a required balance in gravitational response as in the example of

the hydrogen atom orbiting the Sun where the two forces equal each other.

This scenario will not happen thankfully.

  • You're right, it won't happen, because you are all mixed up.

All forces are equal in the real

world. For the "cork" material which by the way makes up the lions percentage

of strata within the Earth, a non penetrating gravity radiation would not be able

to reach and interact with it.

  • Matter is normally possessed of a net, positive charge. To the degree that the negatively charged, gravity-inducing radiation reaches matter within the Earth's shell, there are gravity effects, including inertia. There is no extra inertia in relation to gravity in Mr. Cater's electromagnetic gravity scheme.

SNIP

  • I have snipped the rest of your reasoning, there was only a bitmore, because you continue to base your comments on the same mistake.

I think that this is the siren song and death knell to this idea about

gravity radiation from the Sun not penetrating all the way through the planet.

If it doesn't, then all life on Earth would never have happened.

  • Scott,

  • I have been pondering the nature of your arguments here in this post, as well as a few other posts. I think that I have figured you out- you are deluded. I am referring to a literal definition. You have projected your desire onto your arguments, become illusioned into taking your arguments too seriously because of the intensity of your desire, and ended up a victim of your own desire. It is very difficult to argue with a person like you. Luckily, it is each and every individual list member who is observing and who will draw his or her own conclusion.

  • I suggest that before you respond, you get the advice of other list members who are friends of yours.

  • Later,

Dean