Leslee/Scott/Dean/Einstein/Centrifugal force/Gravity

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

To all, particularly Scott and Dean (from Dick Fojut)...

This is related to Scott and Dean's current "discussion" about gravity and clouds not falling. Recently Leslee (between her AT) posted "CrossPost Secret theory," about a "secret theory" challenging Einstein's Relativity notions, from: "John Novak" <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
At the bottom of Novak's text were the following, truly informative and fascinating URLs, listed below. If any of you missed them, please do go to each (especially the topmost) and scan them. I've been reading through them for a few days. As well as the debate concerning Einstein, is a mass of very worthwhile information about most of the current ideas about the fundamental nature of particles, the atom, electrons, etc., etc.

(Many more comments by me following the URLs. Please check them out.)...
----------------------------

Dr. David L. Bergman, Dr. Charles W. Lucas
http://commonsensescience.orghttp://commonsensescience.org

John Sefton
<>http://www.petcom.com/\`john/

Willie Johnson Jr
see preface
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~williebo/http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~williebo/

Umberto Bartocci
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/quest.htmhttp://www.dipmat.unip g.it/~bartocci/quest.htm
Dipartimento di Matematica Università Istituto TESRE - CNR
Via Vanvitelli, 1

The hypothesizes
http://loophole.topcities.comhttp://loophole.topcities.com
-----------------------------

Some of the references in Scott's recent email response to Dean's email about Clouds not falling, are discussed in the above URLs. If Scott and Dean have not investigated the URLs, may I suggest both of you do. Interesting material.

So far, what I have personally learned from reading the above URL texts, is that MANY present and past scientific notions about fundamental particles, atoms, electrons, quarks, etc are not based upon solid real world evidence, but on ASSUMPTIONS and THEORIES that the various scientific thinkers agree and disagree about. Also, that QUANTUM PHYSICS theories (such as that proposed by Mischio Kaku although he is not mentioned by name) are the FURTHEST from real world proofs, existing as mainly just IDEAS about possibilities.

In brief, it seems to me from reading at the above websites (others may disagree), that our great scientific thinkers have uncertain concepts about the basic "nature" of matter; atoms, electrons, "energy," "forces," etc., etc. And if the uncertainties are so numerous for the preceding, it seems to me that similar uncertainties probably extend to concepts about GRAVITY AS WELL.

I'm still trying to assess the points-counter points of Dean and Scott about Gravity in their two (so far) email discussions.

But I'm puzzled that this planet's outer CENTRIFUGAL FORCE (from the surface outward) is not considered as important. In this real world, Earth's outside centrifugal force from Earth's rotating spin, is attempting to throw every particle on the surface and in the atmosphere, outward into outer space. Does anyone disagree this is happening?

Simultaneously Earth's powerful central magnet, commonly agreed to originate somewhere deep below the crust's surface, in the real world attempts to HOLD ONTO and "pull" towards itself, every material particle, including the finest dust particles at the extreme edge of our world's atmosphere. The "force of gravity" in common terms.

Both forces, the magnetic pulling, and the centrifugal throwing outward, (depending on the mass and composition of the particles), CANCEL OUT each other's efforts, even at the extreme limits of Earth's atmospheric envelope. Does anyone disagree that this "cancelling out," this "neutralizing" of both forces is happening, in the real world?

Without the centrifugal force throwing all outward, Earth's magnet would unrestrictedly attract and pull to it every particle in the atmosphere and plaster them all onto the surface (as close as they could come to the magnet beneath, stopped by density). And this would be a barren body, without an atmosphere, without surface life.

Without the central magnet pulling inward, Earth's unrestricted centrifugal force would throw every loose particle on the surface and in the atmosphere, into outer space. And this would also be a barren body, without an atmosphere, without surface life.

Anyone disagree with my two notions above?

Dean, quoting Cater, may be correct that a REPELLING "frequency" or whatever, becomes part of the tiny water droplets in clouds.

This is just speculation, but it may be that the centrifugal force emanating outward from the surface may ALSO be more than just the initial physical spin outward (which seems temporary). It may be that ALONG WITH the throwing outward effect, some atomic particles (namely H20 water and fine dust particles) become (repellant) "charged" negatively (OR positively) as well. About that Cater may be somewhat on the ball with his soft particle theory.

But it does seem that the centrifugal force (with or without "charging" effects) is MOST responsible for keeping fine dust and fine water particles aloft. How can it be dismissed? Clouds are found at relatively low altitudes in the overall atmosphere where the centrifugal force is still powerful. Clouds eventually DO become too water filled (heavy) and "release" what they carry.

Yet, I can find no objection to Cater's soft particles idea adding to the condition to keep the heavy clouds aloft prior to that point when rain falls. The clouds are obviously OVERcharged with various electrical forces of various kinds (including soft particles?). If not, the contained forces wouldn't be attempting to EQUALIZE into other less-charged areas of the atmosphere as SHEET LIGHTNING - or to the surface of the earth itself, as LIGHTNING BOLTS. Does anyone else on the list agree or disagree on the above points?

But about fine earthly dust (minus the weight of the attached water), continuing to elevate upward and disappear into outer space, I find that unlikely. Why? At the edge of our atmospheric (and/or ether) envelope, Earth's centrifugal force diminishes to almost nothing. But the also diminishing strength of Earth's magnetic pull remains stronger than the centrifugal at that distance. With both forces cancelling each other, but the magnetic remaining stronger, it seems unlikely ANY "dust" particles will "escape" outward beyond that line of neutrality between the centrifugal and magnetic. Without the assistance of the then ineffective centrifugal force, how can the presumed "buoyancy" of the fine dust particles overcome efforts of Earth's magnetic force pulling them back or holding them in place at that distance?

Incoming dust seems an entirely different "matter." IF there are vast quantities of space dust "floating" about in the ether of outer space (which seems probable), some of that dust (heavier particles especially) seem likely to be "captured" by the pull of Earth's magnet. But I do think Cater's enormous importance placed on such incoming dust to be a somewhat grandiose speculation, especially as to the new dust being vital to continuing life on this planet.

How all my preceding comments compares, conflicts or agrees with what Dean and Scott have been discussing about gravity INSIDE EARTH'S SHELL, is up to them to comment on.

But CENTRIFUGAL FORCE does exist INSIDE Earth's body as well as on Earth's surface outward. That real world fact should also be considered an important factor affecting gravity inside Earth's shell. It can't be dismissed when explaining theories about gravity, inside or outside the crust.

  • Dick Fojut

Related thread: Clouds and gravity — Related to the clouds-and-gravity discussion

Another Response to Scott
2

Dick,

Take my word for it, centrifugal force in its current form is
practically a non issue. A good while back I posted a message
on Jan's web site and it amounted to a two fold mathematical
proof that centrifugal force is only 1 part in 300 as strong as the
normal gravity force.
This effect is even less on the interior of the planet shell
since though the period of rotation is the same, the radius to the
center of the spin is lesser yet.
Can't say much now. I have to e-mail Dean again to rephrase
a few things I stated that didn't communicate quite the way I wanted
to.

More later,

Scott

3

Dick,

Are you sure that non-metalic fine dust is under the influence of
earth's magnetic field?

Frode

4

-----------------------

Scott... will watch for your later comments, and rephrased comments to Dean.

As you know, "mathematical equations" (to prove or disprove anything), are over my head. Jastrow, the famous astronomer, would probably agree with your apparent belittling view about centrifugal force. In fact, as I recall from reading Jastrow and Thompson's "textbook," he suggested centrifugal force was illusory, not worthy of consideration in the scheme of things as he saw them.

Is your message about "1 part in 300 as strong as normal gravity force" still on Jan's web site? Like to read it. Your above coupling of the word "normal" with gravity force and reference to "current form" about centrifugal force, seem strange. ?? You seem to suggest Earth's centrifugal force (inside and outside) at present is no longer what it may have been in the distant past and at Earth's birth. Yes? How could that be?

Our Sun also demonstrates centrifugal (or/and repellant) forces with its satellites (including Earth). The Sun "throws" its satellites outward away from itself which cancels out efforts of its magnetic forces trying to pull the satellites into the Sun. The orbit of each satellite marks its NEUTRAL zone. The Sun cannot throw Earth out further or pull Earth in closer. A balance of forces. The orbit is fixed no matter how NASA theorists dream they can "nudge" Earth into a different orbit.

Such neutral zones seem obvious to me for the entire universe. If there were NOT such cancelling out of CENTRIFUGAL FORCES and MAGNETIC (attracting) FORCES, forming neutral zones, the universe would be CHAOTIC, without order. Is it? Apparently not. Otherwise, satellites and Suns might be regularly smashing into each other everywhere we look. The many Suns in our Galaxy are rotating in neutral zones around a great (unseen) body in the middle of the Galaxy. They are its satellites. How can CENTRIFUGAL FORCE be ignored for our Sun, the Galaxy and the rest of the universe? Or ignored for Earth?

  • Dick
5

Frode... Pretty sure. Doesn't the "force of gravity" pull everyTHING tossed upward back to the surface eventually, metallic and NON-metallic?

  • Dick
6

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

7

Members-

At this point in their descent, the Guide and The Man in Etidorhpa
have below passed the point where the gravity-inducing charge exists
with full force. You see that the same physics which holds on the
surface is not present at thier depth:

CHAPTER XXI.

MY WEIGHT IS DISAPPEARING.

We halted suddenly, for we came unexpectedly to the edge of a
precipice, twenty feet at least in depth.

" Let us jump down," said my guide.

" That would be dangerous," I answered; " can not we descend at some
point where it is not so deep?"

" No; the chasm stretches for miles across our path, and at this
point we will meet with the least difficulty; besides, there is no
danger. The specific gravity of our bodies is now so little that we
could jump twice that distance with impunity."

" I can not comprehend you; we are in the flesh, our bodies are
possessed of weight, the concussion will be violent."

" You reason again from the condition of your former life, and, as
usual, are mistaken; there will be little shock, for, as I have said,
our bodies are comparatively light now. Have you forgotten that your
motion is continuously accelerated, and that without perceptible
exertion you move rapidly? This is partly because of the loss of
weight. Your weight would now be only about fifty pounds if tested by
a spring balance."

I stood incredulous.

" You trifle with me; I weigh over one hundred and fifty pounds; how
have I lost weight ? It is true that I have noticed the ease with
which we have recently progressed on our journey, especially the
latter part of it, but I attribute this, in part, to the fact that
our course is down an incline, and also to the vitalizing power of
this cavern air."

" This explains part of the matter," he said; " it answered at the
time, and I stated a fact; but were it not that you are really
consuming a comparatively small amount of energy, you
would long before this have been completely exhausted. You have been
gaining strength for some hours; have really been
growing younger. Your wrinkled face has become more smooth, and your
voice is again natural. You were prematurely aged by your brothers on
the surface of the earth, in order that when you pass the line of
gravity, you might be vigorous and enjoying manhood again. Had this
aging process not been accomplished you would now have become as a
child in many respects."

He halted before me. " Jump up," he said. I promptly obeyed the
unexpected command, and sprung upward with sufficient force to carry
me, as I supposed, six inches from the earth; however I bounded
upward fully six feet. My look of surprise as I gently alighted, for
there was no concussion on my return, seemed lost on my guide, and he

quietly wrote:

" If you can leap six feet upward without any excessive exertion, or
return shock, cannot you jump twenty feet down? Look!"

And he leaped lightly over the precipice and stood unharmed on the
stoney floor below.

Even then I hesitated, observing which, he cried:
" Hang by your hands from the edge then, and drop."

I did so, and the fourteen feet of fall seemed to affect me as though
I had become as light as a cork. I fluttered to the earth as a leaf
would fall, and leaned against the precipice in surprise meditation.

" Others have been through your experience," He remarked, " and I
therefore can overlook your incredulity; but experiences such as you
now meet, remove distrust. Doing is believing."

He smilied benignantly.

The D&M pyramid at Cydonia and the pattern of Mars canali
8

Members,

It is only natural that we ascribe gravity effects to the density of
matter because such an association is confirmed ( excluding clouds )
in our everyday experience. Newton recognized this, and then he
projected such an association all the way through the planets to
their central points, imagining that matter would produce gravity
effects all the way through. After all, there is gravity in NYC, and
gravity in China. The central point of the attraction would "seem "
to be in the middle. On page 12 of Gravitational Force of the Sun,
Dr. Pari Spolter quotes Sir Issac Newton in this regard:

" Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our
sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of
this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that
penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without
suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not
according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which
it acts ( as mechanical causes used to do ), but according to the
quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its
virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always as the
inverse square of the distance ...."

She also disagrees with Newton on page 18 where she states " Newton
did not need, nor did he estimate the masses of the Earth and the
moon to deduce the reciprocal square of the distance from the center
of attraction- and therefore- there is no basis for inclusion of the
term ' product of the two masses,' or for that matter, for the
inclusion of any term for mass in the equation of the gravitational
force."

It only seems to be mass that occasions gravity effects, they are
actually due to a certain frequency of radiation which does not
penetrate uniformly nor completely through the shell of planets,
solid or hollow. This is only reasonable. At some point the frequency
will meet forces opposed and or diminish or change in some way. The
universe is always dynamic,full of change. So why wouldn't gravity
change as it penetrates a planet? If you don't know what
causesgravity, you can't say that it would be uniform throughout a
planet's diameter.

Diminishing gravity effects, due to an electromagnetic, radiating
nature leaves the doors wide open for a hollow planetary
configuration with planetary shells that don't implode due to
superior weight, and which allows for spacious cavern worlds to exist
in the depths below.

Dharma/Dean

lyrics- Thos Were the Days
9

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?
  • And especially how does it affect some of the "fine dust" particles Cater thinks can "buoyantly" rise and escape into outer space?
  • How does it cause fine particles and grosser elemental objects of all sizes in the atmosphere, to be drawn down to the surface?
  • Or repelled from the surface if that is possible?
  • 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?
  • How does it affect CENTRIFUGAL FORCE, if it does?
  • How does it affect attraction and repulsion in the Sun-Earth relationship?
  • And how does it negate Newton's mass notions? Etc., etc., etc.
    At least a FEW practical examples explaining SUCH questions as the above will be appreciated. - Dick
10

Gravity and the magnetic field of earth is not the same thing. At
least not in Cater's theories, not in the conventional theories
either. Can you show some evidence of magnetic fields having
any effect on non-magnetic materials?

Frode

11

Dean (from Dick Fojut)... Comments about the following by Newton, Spolter and you. See below...

inverse square of the distance ...."

------------------------

Dick to Dean: I agree with Spolter in general - BUT partially also with Newton's emphasis on MASS. Newton apparently mistakenly assumed the Earth and other planets were "SOLID" massive spheres, not relatively thin shells with hollow centers. Yet each satellite in our solar system does has a DIFFERENT "mass," specifically the thickness and density of each crust. Those planets with (relatively for their size) thickest and densest crusts appear to orbit closest to the Sun, are "attracted" more to the Sun. Those with less dense or extremely less dense crusts, orbit furthest from the Sun.
Spolter innocently fails to conceive that a planet's "hard" crust can serve as its STORAGE BATTERY for electromagnetic "charges." In other words, like an auto battery, the thicker and denser the crust, the greater the volume of electrical "charges" will be retained in that crust. The denser the crust, the greater the "magnetic capacity" of that crust.
Consider the possibility that it is not the "MASS" of the crust that gravitationally is attracted by the Sun's magnetic pull, but INSTEAD, the great volume of magnetic "charges" stored in that crust (its magnetic capacity). Some of those accumulated stored "charges" may well be Cater's soft particles..
Newton seems partly right. To outward observation it would correctly seem that "mass" attracts "mass." But in reality it may be WHAT IS CONTAINED in each mass that magnetically attracts each mass to the other. The denser the crust ("mass," and thus its magnetic capacity), the greater attraction as shown by each denser crust planet having a closer orbit around the Sun "magnet."
Spolter does not appear to have any conception along such lines, no matter how workable her simplified non-Newton "formulas" seem to be. I only vaguely understand Spolter's formula, and it is some time since I read about it in Pratt's "gravity" online paper...
But from what I remember, Spolter measured the distance from the Sun to each planet and her simpler formula accurately determines the other factors that Newton worked out with his more complicated formula. And she also (I think) suggested gravity is the same for the Sun with every planet of any size, or something to that effect. And she criticized Newton for thinking there are some differences. (correct me if I've misinterpreted her.)
But if I got her idea right, I find something wrong here. The differing MAGNETIC CAPACITY of each planet (stored in its crustal battery) determines the differing DISTANCE each planet will orbit the Sun, as explained above. Those seem enormous DIFFERENCES, whatever the merits of her formula.
Of course, whether CENTRIFUGAL FORCE is "1 to 300" compared to "normal" gravity (as Scott believes) or not, centrifugal (or a repelling) force must ALSO be playing an obvious role between the Sun and its satellites.
SOMETHING prevents the Sun from magnetically pulling all its satellites into the Sun. What is that SOMETHING, if not the REPELLANT centrifugal force emanating from the Sun?
An accidental or random positioning of each planet in different orbits (with perhaps also the Sun too weak to draw in the satellites)? The NASA theorists appear to believe that partly. Or protective giant UFOs daily "pushing" the planets away from the Sun, or some equally silly idea? - Dick (additional comments below)
----------------------------

Dharma/Dean
----------------------------

Dick to Dean... Isn't "Weight" is measured (on a scale) by the degree of magnetic "pull" upon an object's mass and density by a planet's magnet below the surface? Whatever that magnet is, over 50 miles down, Cater's "gravity inducing" soft particles or something other acting as an attracting magnet, the draw of that "magnet" for the object determines the reading of "weight" on a scale.

Acting to neutralize the pull of that magnet is Earth's INSIDE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. Whether weaker by 1 to 300 or 1 to 600 than the Earth's gravitational pull, it appears capable of more than Scott imagines. What degree it may neutralize magnetic pull in the upper crust to keep some upper "cavern worlds" from collapsing, I have no idea. But probably some significant degree, especially if many of those caverns are still filled with volumes of compressed gases (or liquids! The oil theory of Thomas Gold). Also some relatively "small" EMPTY "cavern worlds" in the upper crust, of possibly less than 400 feet from ceiling to floor might also "hold" without easily collapsing from "gravity" pulling from the magnet below.
On the other hand, putting centrifugal force aside, if Earth's "force of gravity," its magnet, originates somewhere beyond 50 miles deep, the even deeper "cavern worlds" and the hollow in the center of earth itself are not likely to easily "implode due to superior weight," because the "source of gravity" would be reversed, being positioned ABOVE, attracting upward, not attracting from below.
Since, presumably each HE fan and you, believe the magnetic pull, the "source of gravity," resides inside the crust between Earth's surface and the inside Hollow, I don't see how anyone can disagree with the general picture I've just sketched. If soft particles are responsible for "gravity inducing effects" at that 50 mile depth, THAT is still where Earth's "source of gravity" apparently originates. Agreed?
So I really don't see why the existence of a hollow earth must depend so totally upon BELIEF in "frequency of radiations" from the Sun. Seems to me the HE might exist anyway, even without that belief.
- Dick Fojut
-----------------

12

Frode wrote Dick...

of earth's magnetic field?

Frode

NON-metallic?

  • Dick

Frode replied... Gravity and the magnetic field of earth is not the same thing. At least not in Cater's theories, not in the conventional theories
either. Can you show some evidence of magnetic fields having
any effect on non-magnetic materials?

Frode
-----------------------

Frode (from Dick)... For God's sake! I repeat... Doesn't the "force of gravity" pull everyTHING tossed upward back to the surface eventually, metallic and NON-metallic?

Why isn't that simple statement sufficient?

Seems to me you are splitting hairs. When you referred to "magnetic fields" I assumed you were generally talking about Earth's magnet and the draw from Earth's magnetic pull below the surface, not the specialized "magnetic field" surrounding earth. I misunderstood your question. Apologies.

Of course "normal" elemental GRAVITY and the encompassing "magnetic field" are not the same thing. Doesn't have anything to do with Earth's "magnetic field" or rather, Earth's "ELECTRO-magnetic field" and the NON-elemental forces (or electrical-type "charges") in the field.

A simple example... The heat of some volcanos has been so intense they temporarily change some melted rock in the funnel to elemental FLAMES and GASES. Plumes of other ejected gases AND the "analyzed" rock-melt as Gas, rise to great heights. At colder altitudes the rock melt-gases reform to solids, but remain broken apart and separated as fine dust. The fine dust (with or without the help of rain droplets) gradually settles back onto the surface of the earth or onto water. WHAT causes that fine dust to be "drawn" to the surface? Of course it is Earth's "force of gravity" attracting both metallic or non-metallic ELEMENTS (or rather the specialized "charge" or whatever it is, inside the elements that is most attracted by earth's magnet in the crust).

The specialized electro-magnetic field appears to play no part in how Earth's inside gravity pulls the dust particles down to Earth, and whether they also contain re-synthesized metals or not.

Frode, what I've just stated above seems to me just plain common sense. Unless you can tell me of some special physical (atomic) element that can resist the attraction of Earth's crustal magnet and can merrily float away into outer space, isn't EVERY elemental particle in the entire atmosphere eventually under the magnetic pull of Earth's "force of Gravity?"

Where is what I've written above denied in conventional theories about the effect of Gravity on elemental particles?

  • Dick
13

Original subject: Magnetic fields, centrifugal force

But I'm puzzled that this planet's outer CENTRIFUGAL FORCE (from the
surface outward) is not considered as important. In this real world,
Earth's outside centrifugal force from Earth's rotating spin, is
attempting to throw every particle on the surface and in the
atmosphere, outward into outer space. Does anyone disagree this is
happening?

  • Dick,

  • Maybe I missed something, but I don'tsee that centrifugal force
    exactly gets denied, right? It is just that gravity overwhelms
    centrifugal force. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Simultaneously Earth's powerful central magnet, commonly agreed to
originate somewhere deep below the crust's surface, in the real world
attempts to HOLD ONTO and "pull" towards itself, every material
particle, including the finest dust particles at the extreme edge of
our world's atmosphere. The "force of gravity" in common terms.

Both forces, the magnetic pulling, and the centrifugal throwing
outward, (depending on the mass and composition of the particles),
CANCEL OUT each other's efforts, even at the extreme limits of
Earth's atmospheric envelope. Does anyone disagree that
this "cancelling out," this "neutralizing" of both forces is
happening, in the real world?

  • The Earth's powerful, central magnet? I don't agree that there is
    one, nor that it powers gravity because gravity is not magnetic.

  • A reasonable explanation for a magnetic field is that it is
    generated by a solenoid effect. That the atmosphere is charged should
    not be hard to accept, look at all the lectricity in lightening. Soft
    particles permeate the atmosphere, too, and contribute a charge. The
    follow the magnetic lines of force and form a canopy around the
    planet. And theplanet is hollow. So the rotation ofa charged solenoid
    produces a magnetic field. Two elements, a charged atmosphere and
    crust; and rotation of the planet.

Without the centrifugal force throwing all outward, Earth's magnet
would unrestrictedly attract and pull to it every particle in the
atmosphere and plaster them all onto the surface (as close as they
could come to the magnet beneath, stopped by density). And this would
be a barren body, without an atmosphere, without surface life.

Without the central magnet pulling inward, Earth's unrestricted
centrifugal force would throw every loose particle on the surface and
in the atmosphere, into outer space. And this would also be a barren
body, without an atmosphere, without surface life.

Anyone disagree with my two notions above?

Dean, quoting Cater, may be correct that a REPELLING "frequency" or
whatever, becomes part of the tiny water droplets in clouds.

This is just speculation, but it may be that the centrifugal force
emanating outward from the surface may ALSO be more than just the
initial physical spin outward (which seems temporary). It may be that
ALONG WITH the throwing outward effect, some atomic particles (namely
H20 water and fine dust particles) become (repellant) "charged"
negatively (OR positively) as well. About that Cater may be somewhat
on the ball with his soft particle theory.

But it does seem that the centrifugal force (with or
without "charging" effects) is MOST responsible for keeping fine dust
and fine water particles aloft. How can it be dismissed? Clouds are
found at relatively low altitudes in the overall atmosphere where the
centrifugal force is still powerful. Clouds eventually DO become too
water filled (heavy) and "release" what they carry.

  • Yes, but clouds are as heavy as things on the ground, in fact, the
    water contained in clouds is heavier than many of the objects stuck
    to the ground by gravity. So if it were a matter of centrifugal force
    instead of charge, then why don't many other objects get thrown aloft
    by the centrifugal force?

Yet, I can find no objection to Cater's soft particles idea adding to
the condition to keep the heavy clouds aloft prior to that point when
rain falls.

  • Well, ok, charge is a force and so is centrifugal force, I gues
    that they both have to be considered, but I really think that charge
    is considerablly more involved.

The clouds are obviously OVERcharged with various electrical forces
of various kinds (including soft particles?). If not, the contained
forces wouldn't be attempting to EQUALIZE into other less-charged
areas of the atmosphere as SHEET LIGHTNING - or to the surface of the
earth itself, as LIGHTNING BOLTS. Does anyone else on the list agree
or disagree on the above points?

But about fine earthly dust (minus the weight of the attached water),
continuing to elevate upward and disappear into outer space, I find
that unlikely.

  • I agree, I doubt that charged dust would go too far.

Why? At the edge of our atmospheric (and/or ether) envelope, Earth's
centrifugal force diminishes to almost nothing. But the also
diminishing strength of Earth's magnetic pull remains stronger than
the centrifugal at that distance. With both forces cancelling each
other, but the magnetic remaining stronger, it seems unlikely
ANY "dust" particles will "escape" outward beyond that line of
neutrality between the centrifugal and magnetic. Without the
assistance of the then ineffective centrifugal force, how can the
presumed "buoyancy" of the fine dust particles overcome efforts of
Earth's magnetic force pulling them back or holding them in place at
that distance?

Incoming dust seems an entirely different "matter." IF there are vast
quantities of space dust "floating" about in the ether of outer space
(which seems probable), some of that dust (heavier particles
especially) seem likely to be "captured" by the pull of Earth's
magnet. But I do think Cater's enormous importance placed on such
incoming dust to be a somewhat grandiose speculation, especially as
to the new dust being vital to continuing life on this planet.

  • If the incoming dust particles are part and parcel of the process
    of rain, then they would be in that sense.

How all my preceding comments compares, conflicts or agrees with what
Dean and Scott have been discussing about gravity INSIDE EARTH'S
SHELL, is up to them to comment on.

  • I done did.

DD

But CENTRIFUGAL FORCE does exist INSIDE Earth's body as well as on
Earth's surface outward. That real world fact should also be
considered an important factor affecting gravity inside Earth's
shell. It can't be dismissed when explaining theories about gravity,
inside or outside the crust.

  • Dick Fojut
14

Dick,

It seems like we have some semantic problems again. You use
the terms "magnet and magnetic" in a context that I am not
familiar with. From what I understand, your definition goes like
this:

Magnet = something that attracts(attractive force)

Gravity attracts so it is a magnetic force.

Right??

When I keep, what I think is your definition of magnetism is in my
mind, then your writing make sense.

BUT! Is it a good thing to invent a new meaning for a word like
"magnetic". I don' t think so, it certainly is not scientific.¨

Did you know that diamagnetic materials is repelled by a
magnetic field? Though, not to the same degree as
paramagnetic materials are attracted. This means that a
magnetic force is not only something that attracts but also
something that repels.

I see no point of tiptoeing around this issue Dick, so here is my
honest meaning about this:

The words magnet and magnetic has a specific meaning that
YOU can not play with as you see fit. A magnet attracts
paramagnetic materials, especially strong paramagnetic
materials like certain metals. A magnet and something magnetic
has only a meaning in this context. This words have no meaning
in describing what gravity is. No meaning what so ever.

Frode

15

And

You can find out the gravitational force of the Sun by using the
planets that the Sun holds in orbit around itself.

When you use Pari Spolter's formula for calculating the
gravitational force of the Sun based on the planets you get a
consistent answer that is almost the same for all the planets.
There are just some small variations. But when you use
Newton's equation you get an answer that is not consistent at all.

You will get the same results when you use the same procedure
to calculate the gravitational forces of the planets. With Newton's
formula you will get different answers dependent on which moon
or satellite you use. With Spolter's formula you get a consistent
answer.

It is obvious that the gravitational force of the planets and the Sun
doesn't change, so something must be wrong with Newton's
formula.

Spolter doesn't claim that the Sun and the planets have the
same gravitational force . ( Just in case that was what you
thought above)

Frode

16

Original subject: magnetic and gravitational field

Dick,

You really are confusing magnetic and gravitational field.

Dean

Subject: [allplanets-hollow] Re:
Leslee/Scott/Dean/Einstein/Centrifugal force/Gravity

Dick,

Are you sure that non-metalic fine dust is under the influence of
earth's magnetic field?

Frode

17

Dick Fojut wrote:

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?
  • And especially how does it affect some of the "fine dust" particles Cater thinks can "buoyantly" rise and escape into outer space?
  • How does it cause fine particles and grosser elemental objects of all sizes in the atmosphere, to be drawn down to the surface?
  • Or repelled from the surface if that is possible?
  • 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?
  • How does it affect CENTRIFUGAL FORCE, if it does?
  • How does it affect attraction and repulsion in the Sun-Earth relationship?
  • And how does it negate Newton's mass notions? Etc., etc., etc.
    At least a FEW practical examples explaining SUCH questions as the above will be appreciated. - 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

18

nameerf wrote:

force/Gravity

of

earth's magnetic field?

Frode

everyTHING

19

Hi All,

I have a couple of things to clear up and then I'll get to the
point.

  1. In a recent e-mail I stated to Dean that the passive state of the
    mass
    of the atoms was what was going on with a possible electromagnetic
    connection of gravity. I meant to indicated that each atom did have a
    polarity of charge that was perhaps as Dean states toward the polarity
    he mentions. (positive?)
  2. Dick has it wrong when he stated that the Sun causes the planets into

a centrifugal force. The Sun has nothing to do with it other than the
fact that
it is pulling on or having the planets pushed toward the Sun. The people
who
talk about centrifugal force being a pseudo force can call it that but
put them
into a centrifuge (the United States Air Force has a few of them) and let
them
explain to us how this force is imaginary.

I will try this Polter comparison one more time but it seems to
go
by every ones head so perhaps I am a poor communicator or else I am just
wrong. The topic is gravity in the solar system. Before considering any
possible differences, lets define the Suns gravity as a constant which
only will
differ by the laws of inverse squared distance. Ok, We will take 10
basketballs
or rocks or an object of your choosing and set one of the balls exactly
opposite
the orbit of each of the10 major planets that are the current recognized
planets
of our solar system. In actuality all orbits follow the 1st law of
Kepler and
orbit their primary in the form of an ellipse but we will consider the
planets
as orbiting in perfect circles for simplicity sake.
We know that all this "sample" set of planet bodies are at a
constant
mean distance from the Sun and that the gravitational reaction is the
same for
all balls except for distance. Close observation of each of the balls
tells us that
their velocity in space corresponds exactly with the mean orbital
distance each is
from the Sun. So everything is identical except for distance and period,
a
phenomenon which Kepler discovered in his 3rd law of orbital mechanics.
Now I would ask Dean, Frode, Jan, Rod, Dennis, Dick, Greg and
anyone else
in the group a simple question. If we suddenly doubled the "weight" or
mass of one
of the sample set balls, will they still remain at the same place they
had been in the
orbit of the Sun? Yes, otherwise, Keplers laws would be shown to be all
wet. His
rules of thumb for planetary movement is independent of the amount of
mass that an
orbiting satellite has. You might think that mass doesn't play a role
but that is an
illusion.

All bodies have a certain inertia, often related to their weight
or mass and if
we increase the mass of an object we consequently find that it is harder
to accelerate
up to the velocity you wish it to go. This is undisputable. If you are
acting as the "Sun",
a motive force, and it is your job to accelerate a body to 10 miles an
hour that is on a
hand cart, it can be done fairly easily if the cart is empty. Put Dean
in the hand cart
and it is much harder to accelerate him and the cart up to the same
speed. I should
know! Dean is a very immovable object # : ^ ( [stubborn ya know]
It is well and good for people to ignore Newton and suggest that
the laws of
gravity can be arrived at without using the mass product feature but to
me THAT
would ignore the scenario I just described. The reason I still believe
so intently that
the mass product idea has merit is due to the fact that the Sun is able
to move a
planetary ball or satellite with the same orbital specifications as a
ball with half the mass.
This is due to the extra "HIDDEN" effort that the extra mass product is
providing to fight
and overcome inertia. INERTIA people! Don't you yet see the connection?

When we use bodies organized into heavy atoms and globe type
structures, this
amount of mass must be ascertained else there can be no accurate equation
predicting
the type of motion which will occur.
Lets suggest that the mass of a satellite didn't matter. We know
instinctively that
this idea is incorrect because the military has definite tables that
indicate how much
power and expansive pressure is required to make a shell shoot out of a
battle ship gun
and travel 20 miles. You surely don't believe for a second that the same
amount of
expansion pressure used to send a 1 ton shell 20 miles is all that is
required to move a
2 ton shell the same distance. Do you? I thought not.
Well, this is exactly the impression I get from the Spolter book
suggesting that
Newton need not have gone to the effort he did to calculate gravitational
differences
between the planets. Here we aren't speaking in terms of how many gas
canisters are
required to do the job. Something MUST account for the added effort that
must be
used to overcome the resistance to a change in inertia of the orbiting
body. A brakeman
on a train track knows that more effort must be applied in order to make
a train come
to a halt and with a heavier loaded freight car and the same number of
engines,
acceleration up to cruising speed takes longer. Why? It is a matter of
overcoming
INERTIA! To reiterate, if a body in orbit of the Sun were suddenly twice
its mass,
and the mass product idea didn't come into play, then the Suns power to
attract that
body toward it would be insufficient to maintain the arc of the orbit
that satellite had
been moving in.

Now to play the conciliation role let me put all of this another
way. How could it
be stated that mass product does not matter? This is possible only if we
consider the
planets as sets of subatomic particles which all have the same exact
response or affinity
toward a gravitational source, our Sun in this case. Each orbiting body
is likened to
a solution set of identical subatomic particles of indeterminate number.
They all are either
exactly inside of, equal to, or outside of the exact distance toward the
Sun which is
symbolic of its barrycenter. This is most likely the exact center of a
spherical solution
set of particles. The ones minutely farther away are counterbalanced by
the ones which
are slightly too close to the Sun. Thus, as long as the body retains its
cohesive shape,
all subatomic particles which are gravitationally induced average out to
the one atom
which is exactly at the center of the spherical shape or its barrycenter.
This is the only
way I can envision doing away with the mass product concept, except that
doing that
will depict an incomplete view of the physical world where mass products
are ignored
yet we still have to calculate forces required to accelerate projectiles
dependent upon
their mass. I see no reason to do that.

You may be thinking as it strikes me that my lecture has a note
of hair splitting to it.
I staunchly defend yet at the same time partially see fit to ignore the
mass product scheme.
It really isn't a contradiction if one remembers that math is a
combination of repeated adding
such as multiplication and we are after all dealing with the idea of the
PRODUCT between
separate masses. Products are nothing but a way of calculating a
repeated addition. It is
a sort of shorthand method of dealing with a solution set of a large
number of repeated ONES
indicative of each subatomic particle or unit prone to the gravity
function. We are thus
forced to account for the increase in inertia which additional inclusions
to this objects
solution set of ONES will have and in doing so and considering the effect
of compression
and density over variations of distance find that the Newton formula
makes a lot of sense
when you come right down to it.

Dean is big on Cater and I see a partial reality in his scenario
of electromagnetics,
but I am beside myself how a universal law of gravity can be so easily
sidestepped. It
would be my hope that if electromagnetic radiation concept of gravity
gains acceptance,
it would turn out to be a natural extension of the mass product or
individual subatomic
particle set theory I just expounded upon. He is in the habit of stating
that mass products
are alright part of the time but they fail to focus correctly in other
circumstances. I fail to
see how this can be. If a law which is universally consistent and acts
for the betterment
of beings which live on planets cannot be trusted at all times, it leaves
me without...
how shall we say this... my sucky blanket, or comfort zone? I shall say
it again, I feel
great trepidation at the thought that one cannot rely on a constant set
of standards 100%
of the time. I fully expect that some things suggested by my friendly
adversaries has some
merit to it. Electrical fields have been shown both to suspend the laws
of inertia and as
we all know, UFO's work on a mysterious force alien to the ways of
aerodynamical
engineers.
As I see it Mr. Cater must do two thinks to earn my respect. The
first is to act a
bit more humble. I know that Dean says, "That's just the way he is, but
the mans an
adult surely and ought be well along in personal maturity to understand
that nobody at
any age can simply be a bull in a china shop and expect everyone to
follow his lead.
What is fact is only fact after a candidate for fact has satisfied
required criteria. I wish
I could convince Dean to look at my latest program. He would see that
every few pages
I call to the attention of the reader that I have doubts about my own
ideas and this was
a writing characteristic I was keen to follow in dealing with the
unknown. It would even
surprise Dean if after finally going over my entire program he found that
my ideas were
not as contrary to the ones he has. It is like an erector set. One kid
puts it together in
one way and another another. Kids observing the efforts of others get
new ideas they
might not have thought of themselves and this only raises the general
level of creativity
within their group.
The second is something that Dean has fallen into and that is
claiming such praise
for Mr. Cater's theories and being able to make jokes about his not
having been deep
down into the Earth recently. If we don't observe it personally, where
is one behaving
as a scientist? True, one could make the same critique of some of the
theories I put forth
concerning the null gravity hypothesis and gravity on the interior of the
Earth, but I hope
that I come off as someone who has heard about the scientific method and
accepts the
possibility that he could be wrong.

Well, I hope that I have been instructive and that food for thought has
been had by all!

Scott

To review my program Multi.exe simply submit to these two conditions and
e-mail me at [email protected]
with the words "I agree" in the subject line which indicates your
acceptance of my terms. Thanks for your interest!

  1. Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished
    work in progress, AND
  2. To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the
    program.
20

Scott,

With regards to your comments in the three paragraphs below, I have a hunch of where the lack of communication is.

So far I have tried to stress the concept that, in an electromagnetic scheme of gravity, inertia, " weight, " is going to increase with mass in a spheical object up to a certain diameter. Let's make our cut off point 50 miles of penetration all around from the surface. Since the penetration of the gravity-inducing radiation is only going to be 50miles on each side, a sphere in excess of 150 miles will have mass with diminished inertia, weightless mass, rock which is like cork- in the area beyond the penetration of the gravity-inducing radiation.

This means the the intensity of gravity, the gravity per square meter, doesn't change with the size of the sphere. For every square meter, there is the same Earth-like intensity of gravity.

However- and maybe the problem in communication is here- the greater the surface, the greater is the total gravity that you introduce. That is because the surface mass does contain the gravity-inducing charge. Thus the Earth and Mars have different total gravity because one exhibits a greater surface area than the other, although on those two surfaces, there is simply an Earth-like intensity of gravity.

Penetrating the surfaces of those planets more than 50 miles brings about a diminition of gravity in both.Gravity isn't uniformly, nor completely penetrating in the case of ether planet.

Does this make a difference in your mind?

The question is not the external gravity effect of one planet upon another, it is a matter of the diminished gravity within the sphere, and the intensity of gravity on the surface.

Got to go.

DD

I will try this Polter comparison one more time but it seems to go
by every ones head so perhaps I am a poor communicator or else I am just
wrong. ...

We know that all this "sample" set of planet bodies are at a constant
mean distance from the Sun and that the gravitational reaction is the same for
all balls except for distance. Close observation of each of the balls tells us that
their velocity in space corresponds exactly with the mean orbital distance each is
from the Sun. So everything is identical except for distance and period, a
phenomenon which Kepler discovered in his 3rd law of orbital mechanics.
Now I would ask Dean, Frode, Jan, Rod, Dennis, Dick, Greg and anyone else
in the group a simple question. If we suddenly doubled the "weight" or mass of one
of the sample set balls, will they still remain at the same place they had been in the
orbit of the Sun? Yes, otherwise, Keplers laws would be shown to be all wet. His
rules of thumb for planetary movement is independent of the amount of mass that an
orbiting satellite has. You might think that mass doesn't play a role but that is an
illusion.

All bodies have a certain inertia, often related to their weight or mass and if
we increase the mass of an object we consequently find that it is harder to accelerate
up to the velocity you wish it to go. This is undisputable. If you are acting as the "Sun",
a motive force, and it is your job to accelerate a body to 10 miles an hour that is on a
hand cart, it can be done fairly easily if the cart is empty. Put Dean in the hand cart
and it is much harder to accelerate him and the cart up to the same speed. I should
know! Dean is a very immovable object # : ^ ( [stubborn ya know]

It is well and good for people to ignore Newton and suggest that the laws of
gravity can be arrived at without using the mass product feature but to me THAT
would ignore the scenario I just described. The reason I still believe so intently that
the mass product idea has merit is due to the fact that the Sun is able to move a
planetary ball or satellite with the same orbital specifications as a ball with half the mass.
This is due to the extra "HIDDEN" effort that the extra mass product is providing to fight
and overcome inertia. INERTIA people! Don't you yet see the connection?
When we use bodies organized into heavy atoms and globe type structures, this
amount of mass must be ascertained else there can be no accurate equation predicting
the type of motion which will occur.
Lets suggest that the mass of a satellite didn't matter. We know instinctively that
this idea is incorrect because the military has definite tables that indicate how much
power and expansive pressure is required to make a shell shoot out of a battle ship gun
and travel 20 miles. You surely don't believe for a second that the same amount of
expansion pressure used to send a 1 ton shell 20 miles is all that is required to move a
2 ton shell the same distance. Do you? I thought not.
Well, this is exactly the impression I get from the Spolter book suggesting that
Newton need not have gone to the effort he did to calculate gravitational differences
between the planets. Here we aren't speaking in terms of how many gas canisters are
required to do the job. Something MUST account for the added effort that must be
used to overcome the resistance to a change in inertia of the orbiting body. A brakeman
on a train track knows that more effort must be applied in order to make a train come
to a halt and with a heavier loaded freight car and the same number of engines,
acceleration up to cruising speed takes longer. Why? It is a matter of overcoming
INERTIA! To reiterate, if a body in orbit of the Sun were suddenly twice its mass,
and the mass product idea didn't come into play, then the Suns power to attract that
body toward it would be insufficient to maintain the arc of the orbit that satellite had
been moving in.

Now to play the conciliation role let me put all of this another way. How could it
be stated that mass product does not matter? This is possible only if we consider the
planets as sets of subatomic particles which all have the same exact response or affinity
toward a gravitational source, our Sun in this case. Each orbiting body is likened to
a solution set of identical subatomic particles of indeterminate number. They all are either
exactly inside of, equal to, or outside of the exact distance toward the Sun which is
symbolic of its barrycenter. This is most likely the exact center of a spherical solution
set of particles. The ones minutely farther away are counterbalanced by the ones which
are slightly too close to the Sun. Thus, as long as the body retains its cohesive shape,
all subatomic particles which are gravitationally induced average out to the one atom
which is exactly at the center of the spherical shape or its barrycenter. This is the only
way I can envision doing away with the mass product concept, except that doing that
will depict an incomplete view of the physical world where mass products are ignored
yet we still have to calculate forces required to accelerate projectiles dependent upon
their mass. I see no reason to do that.

You may be thinking as it strikes me that my lecture has a note of hair splitting to it.
I staunchly defend yet at the same time partially see fit to ignore the mass product scheme.
It really isn't a contradiction if one remembers that math is a combination of repeated adding
such as multiplication and we are after all dealing with the idea of the PRODUCT between
separate masses. Products are nothing but a way of calculating a repeated addition. It is
a sort of shorthand method of dealing with a solution set of a large number of repeated ONES
indicative of each subatomic particle or unit prone to the gravity function. We are thus
forced to account for the increase in inertia which additional inclusions to this objects
solution set of ONES will have and in doing so and considering the effect of compression
and density over variations of distance find that the Newton formula makes a lot of sense
when you come right down to it.

Dean is big on Cater and I see a partial reality in his scenario of electromagnetics,
but I am beside myself how a universal law of gravity can be so easily sidestepped. It
would be my hope that if electromagnetic radiation concept of gravity gains acceptance,
it would turn out to be a natural extension of the mass product or individual subatomic
particle set theory I just expounded upon. He is in the habit of stating that mass products
are alright part of the time but they fail to focus correctly in other circumstances. I fail to
see how this can be. If a law which is universally consistent and acts for the betterment
of beings which live on planets cannot be trusted at all times, it leaves me without...
how shall we say this... my sucky blanket, or comfort zone? I shall say it again, I feel
great trepidation at the thought that one cannot rely on a constant set of standards 100%
of the time. I fully expect that some things suggested by my friendly adversaries has some
merit to it. Electrical fields have been shown both to suspend the laws of inertia and as
we all know, UFO's work on a mysterious force alien to the ways of aerodynamical
engineers.
As I see it Mr. Cater must do two thinks to earn my respect. The first is to act a
bit more humble. I know that Dean says, "That's just the way he is, but the mans an
adult surely and ought be well along in personal maturity to understand that nobody at
any age can simply be a bull in a china shop and expect everyone to follow his lead.
What is fact is only fact after a candidate for fact has satisfied required criteria. I wish
I could convince Dean to look at my latest program. He would see that every few pages
I call to the attention of the reader that I have doubts about my own ideas and this was
a writing characteristic I was keen to follow in dealing with the unknown. It would even
surprise Dean if after finally going over my entire program he found that my ideas were
not as contrary to the ones he has. It is like an erector set. One kid puts it together in
one way and another another. Kids observing the efforts of others get new ideas they
might not have thought of themselves and this only raises the general level of creativity
within their group.
The second is something that Dean has fallen into and that is claiming such praise
for Mr. Cater's theories and being able to make jokes about his not having been deep
down into the Earth recently. If we don't observe it personally, where is one behaving
as a scientist? True, one could make the same critique of some of the theories I put forth
concerning the null gravity hypothesis and gravity on the interior of the Earth, but I hope
that I come off as someone who has heard about the scientific method and accepts the
possibility that he could be wrong.

Well, I hope that I have been instructive and that food for thought has been had by all!

Scott

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To review my program Multi.exe simply submit to these two conditions and e-mail me at [email protected]
with the words "I agree" in the subject line which indicates your acceptance of my terms. Thanks for your interest!

  1. Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished work in progress, AND
  2. To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the program.