Max,
You mentioned that “ My big sticking point on the proposed alternatives to
gravity that
I've seen is that they don't account well for a lot of basic phenomena, like
the attraction of lead spheres ...”
All you have done is catch a few lay explanations, of Cater’s HE model, from
me, so I am disappointed that you now define to the group that these other
explanations don’t account for a certain gravitational phenomnena.
I think that one problem with getting Cater's model across is that you
already have such a science background. It is hard to come along to a
physicist and tell him that everything that he has learned is wrong ( of
course, I am exagerrating in order to make my point ). But really, so many
of the theories, like big bang, depend on gravity as determined by the
density of mass. When you pull out the carpet, a lot comes tumbling down and
the king has no clothes. So it is hard to get a person who already has such
a background to be objective. For this reason, it is good to have somebody
from outside the area, like me, to come in and start poking his nose around.
He ( I ) may be oversimplistic about things in some ways, but he can readily
accept other points because he has no previous attachments.
On my side, I am still looking for something in Newtonian gravity which
accounts for the paucious effect of the Sun on the tides- according to its
mass, it should have a much more significant effect. I was hoping that you
might feel that enough had been presented to you to warrant further
investigation of Mr. Cater’s presentation, i.e., enough to go on. When I
brought up this observation on the sun’s lack of effect, you just replied
that the sun must exert the gravity due to its mass because of a certain
anomaly in Mercury’s orbit, and the bending of light around the sun. Do you
see what I mean? I bring up a very good piece of evidence- the sun is the
largest object that we can see in the sky and the ocean is the largest body
on the face of the earth- but you have other ideas because you have been
schooled already by conventional science. The effects which you mention can
have other explanations, of course; Frode gave one or two to you.
About the lead sphere experiments- you already know that the Cavendish-type
experiments are the ones involving the attraction between lead spheres, of
course. Mr. Cater gives an explanation of this in Chapter four.
He’ll explain that the agitation of ethers by the thermal agitation of
electrons produces low frequency particles which are easily transformed to
the gravity-inducing range. I think that one idea is that the heat used in
the Cavendish experiments doesn’t mimic true conditions, such that the
results are different.
Another point is that the gravity inducing that takes place in a small
sphere will not mimic the conditions throughout a large globe, one of at
least 150 miles in diameter. This is because the production of
gravity-inducing radiation is not uniform throughout a globe of that size,
although it is throughout the lead spheres used in the Cavendish
experiments.
Anyway, these are my lay interpretations of Cater. Here is the piece from
Chapte four:
AN EXPLANATION FOR THE MAGNITUDES OF EARTH AND MOON GRAVITY
All matter continuously radiates soft particles of many different kinds due
to the interactions of the fundamental particles. These radiated particles
undergo a transformation effect, according to the redistribution law, when
passing through large concentrations of matter. When this occurs, some of
the radiation is transformed into gravity-inducing radiations. This is the
source of some of the earth and moon surface gravity. The greatest
contributing factor to earth and moon gravity is the transformation of
radiation resulting from the thermal agitation of atoms and molecules. The
particles resulting from this activity are comprised of lower frequency
photons. Such radiation is more readily transformed into gravityinducing
radiations, because it is closer to this frequency band to begin with. A
significant portion of such radiation, originating miles below the surface,
is transfered into gravityproducing energies by the time it reaches the
surface. Most of the earth and moon gravity radiations are created in the
first fifty miles of their crusts. Below that level, much of the energy from
the sun has been transformed into softer particles, and the material of the
earth and moon is permeated with them.
These soft particles will screen out gravity radiations more effectively
than solid matter, because the ethers they are associated with, are closer
in frequency to those of the gravity radiations. The reason moon gravity
is nearly equal to earth gravity now becomes apparent. AT THE SAME TIME, IT
IS CLEAR WHY THE FAMED CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT FOR DETERMINING THE SO-CALLED
GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT WAS MISLEADING. THERE WASN’T ENOUGH MATERIAL IN THE
BODIES USED IN THE EXPERIMENT TO PRODUCE AND TRANSFORMATION OF RADIATIONS.
[ In other words, not enough material for the redistribution of energy to
come about ]. The gravitational effects produced by the bodies were due
entirely to the thermal agitation of the molecules without transformations.
The thermal agitation of molecules produces infrared frequencies and only an
infinitesimal portion of this radiated energy is in the gravityproducing
frequency range.
The force that the gravitating body used in the Cavendish experiments
exerted on the other body was the result of these same gravity radiations
emanating from the body. The wellknown gravitational constant was derived
from the known mass of the gravitating body, and the force as exerted on the
other body of known mass. This constant, and the idea of unlimited gravity
penetration, required the earth to have tremendous mass in order to account
for the gravitational force it produces. Scientists assumed the earth must
have an iron core 4000 miles in diameter to account for such a mass.
It is significant that some of the Cavendish experiments indicated gravity
effects varied with the termperature. When the large gravitating sphere used
in the experiments was heated, the attracted smaller sphere had a greater
tendency to move toward the large sphere. When the larger sphere was cooled,
the smaller sphere receded. This was explained away by convection currents,
although they failed to explain how convection currents could produce such
an effect. A detailed account of this can be found in the 11th edition of
Encyclopedia Britannica within the subject "Gravity."
As mentioned before, matter produces infrared radiations which are partially
transformed into gravity radiations. In the case of mountain ranges, there
is not enough matter to transform significant portions of such radiations
into the gravity radiations. Much of the radiation will escape from the tops
and slopes of the mountains before they can be transformed since their
average heights are generally small compared to their horizontal extension.
The gravity radiations produced deep in the interior of the mountains are
partially dispersed by the overlying mass. This is the cause of the plumb
bob enigma, a source of annoyance to conventional physicists. The plumb bobs
are not pulled out of line by the mountains to the extent the Newtonian law
demands.
···
At 10:19 3/7/01 +0000, Jan Lamprecht wrote:
>Mike has asked me to come and answer questions relating to the hollow
>earth/hollow planets. I'm told there are some people here with a serious
>scientific background who have questions to ask.That would be me.
My big sticking point on the proposed alternatives to gravity that
I've seen is that they don't account well for a lot of basic phenomena,
like the attraction of lead spheres in the classic experiment for
measuring G, let alone the weird things that happen when Newtonian
gravity breaks down and you need to use Einsteinian gravity.
General relativity has proved to be an astonishingly accurate
predictor of the outcome of experiments, so I'm inclined to doubt
theories that can't replicate its results.
