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

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
, ,
21

Dick to Dean (out of context discussion on magnetic fields, Centrifugal; Force etc.) Some of the points below are VERY basic and need more discussion,,,
--------------------

Dick Wrote to Dean: 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?

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

Dick comments: Dean, I'm truly stunned! You DON'T believe Earth has a central (within the crust) magnet? Nor that it powers gravity because gravity is not magnetic?
Your gravity assertion seems a complete denial of Newton about masses attracting masses - and everyone orthodox who still think Earth's "MAGNET" is their theorized iron-nickel metal sphere in the center of the earth.
And also denial of the science writer (I mentioned earlier) in my 1949 Britannica who claimed "scientists" (at that time) have found the "source of gravity" appears to originate, not at Earth's center, but at a 50 mile depth, evenly around the entire earth.

So far as I am aware,.in science, the word "magnet" is used commonly to mean, as in "the source of gravity," the "source" that ATTRACTS or DRAWS ALL physical material elements to itself. "Magnet" is of course also applied to metal bar magnets and electrically charged metal devices that ATTRACT electromagnetically charged metals.
FRICTION alone will ATTRACT and collect at the point of friction, all sorts of MAGNETIC forces, heat forces (thus also presumably soft particles) in the atmosphere. In practical effect, that seems a "magnetic" drawing to itself.

Dean, WHAT in heaven is supposed to be going on with Cater's theorized "gravity inducing effects" of soft particles at Cater's assumed 50 mile depth?
You appear to imply that the "gravity inducing" 50 mile level is NOT attracting to it (like a "magnet") all material elements above, on the surface and in the atmosphere?
Then what are these "gravity inducing effects" 50 miles down?
What is happening at the 50 mile depth, if they have nothing to do with the physical earth ABOVE? - Dick
-------------------------

Dean continued his reply: * 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.

Dick to Dean: I'm sorry, but like some of Cater's more involved explanations, your paragraph above bewilders me. Of course the atmosphere's particles are "charged," but you give no reason how they have become "charged." Stating there is "electricity in lightning" to justify the existence of atmospheric "charge," is not a reason, just a statement of the obvious. (Actually lightning indicates an OVERcharge.)
Of course there is "electricity in lightning," PLUS innumerable magnetic forces, plus heat forces, plus a lot of other undefined "charges" and possibly even Cater's soft particles which "contribute a charge."
(And just WHAT is the "charge" that soft particles contribute? Please explain if you can.)
Dean, the observed phenomena of LIGHTNING shows us that an excess, an OVERcharge of such "charges" in the atmosphere, is either (with sheet lightning) EQUALIZING into nearby UNDERcharged areas - or "grounding," returning to "storage" in Earth's crust through a vertical LIGHTNING BOLT.

WHAT are "magnetic lines of force" composed of, that form a "canopy around the planet" that you mention? Please define.
I'm not disputing their existence. Or the existence of a "magnetic field." Agreed, the atmosphere's elements and the crust's elements, are permeated, "charged"- with every sort of electromagnetic type "charge." Agreed that the rotation of the planet, (clearly utilizing the "charges"), produces a magnetic field around earth, a canopy.

But what has your preceding paragraph got to do with explaining "the force of gravity" or MAGNETIC attraction? Or the REASON solid elements, from fine dust particles to heavy objects temporarily held aloft, "fall" to Earth's surface, seem ATTRACTED to something WITHIN or BELOW the crust? What is your explanation of everyday GRAVITY? Dean, I haven't clearly discerned such explanations from your paragraph above.

  • Dick
    -----------------

Dick to Dean: I'll have to take your word about clouds being "heavier than many objects stuck to the ground by gravity." I'm curious. Just how was cloud WEIGHT measured? How did they get clouds on a scale? Like others early estimated the WEIGHT of the Earth?
By "charge" in your above paragraph, I'm assuming you mean REPELLANT "charges," negative charges, correct? I don't disagree that such "anti-gravity," negative "charges" may be involved with keeping "heavy" clouds (temporarily) aloft.
But why do you think it must be EITHER negative repelling "charges" OR Centrifugal force, but not both involved at the same time? If you got the impression I believed ONLY centrifugal force was acting, I failed to communicate my view properly.

In your last sentence you asked "...then why don't many other objects get thrown aloft by the centrifugal force?"
Commonsense instructs us that Gravity has a greater power to hold or pull back "heavy" objects on the surface than centrifugal force has to throw the objects outward. NASA's rockets initially overpower gravity with pushing outward thrust, then utilize centrifugal force from Earth's spin to "throw" the rocket out further.

Dean, as you well know, pre-existing clouds didn't "rise" from Earth's surface already saturated "heavy" with water. The light components of clouds began to form at cool altitudes from light, elemental atmospheric gases and compounds. Oxygen, Hydrogen, etc.cooled and combined into compounds WITH existing excess volumes of light moisture present in the atmosphere in the area.
I don't presume to understand the CHEMICAL reasons the light gaseous elements combined with, or ABSORBED the excess moisture to form clouds, just that it happens.
It does seem probable that some of the electrical "charges" accumulated in clouds must have an additional negative effect on Gravity, temporarily neutralizing it additionally to a degree. On that Cater seems to have made a contribution.

But the "lighter" elements like Oxygen and Hydrogen , before they combine to form "heavy" clouds, are least affected by gravity or Earth's "force of gravity," attracting them back to the surface.

Affecting these lighter elements, centrifugal force seems stronger than gravity, starting from Earth's surface for some distance out, but gradually diminishing in power at the outer limit of Earth's atmospheric (and ether) "envelope."

Clearly, the lightest elements like Oxygen and Hydrogen are most easily thrown outward by Earth's centrifugal force of rotation.. But every step of the way, Earth's "magnet" (source of gravity) resists, attempting to pull the light elements (and everything heavier) back to the surface.

Observation teaches us that for some distance above the surface in the atmosphere, the repelling centrifugal force has a slight upper hand over the magnet's pulling lighter elements inward. It is a near balance, a near checkmate with each force cancelling the efforts of the other, all the way out through the atmosphere.
(Only in special situations as in LA, where other "heavier" toxic fumes are trapped under "inversion layers" can gravity accumulatively collect chemical vapors near the surface.)

From Earth's surface to the extreme edges of the atmosphere, Gravity and centrifugal force are gradually nearly NEUTRALIZING each other's efforts. Both gradually diminish in power, but gravity diminishes in power more slowly and eventually gains the advantage at the extreme edges of the atmosphere. Even the thin atmospheric particles at that edge are prevented from being thrown into outer space further by the weakened centrifugal force. The remaining Gravity force holds them..Does that answer your last question?

  • Dick
22

Dick to Frode: Great! In my clumsy way I finally made some sense to you.
---------------

Dick to Frode: If we were in class and you were my science and/or English teacher, I guess you'd flunk me.
GRAVITY. How do YOU define and explain Gravity on this planet?

Jastrow and T define GRAVITY as: "The attraction of one mass to another; one of basic forces in the physical universe." A loyal Newtonian definition with which I find fault.

And as I've commented to you and others, I think mass attracting mass is correct on the surface, but incomplete. It seems more the "magnetic forces" contained inside each mass that ATTRACTS one to another, not a "love affair" between two elemental physical objects.

The "force of gravity,".the "magnetic source," the "magnet" somewhere under Earth's surface, attempts to ATTRACT and PULL to itself EVERY elemental particle in the crust, on the surface and in the atmosphere and waters - including Rock, metal, liquid and gas, no exceptions.

I can't prove it Frode, but I suspect Earth's "magnet" attracts subtle "magnetic forces" of some type INSIDE or permeating physical elements. The attached or accompanying elements come along for the "ride." Even though this seems to have nothing to do with ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES, it may be a the "force of Gravity's" Specialized attraction for certain "charges" found only in elements.

In effect FRODE, Earth's "force of Gravity," its "MAGNET," "magnetically' draws to itself EVERY physical element, with or without metal.
Since that HAPPENS every moment in the REAL WORLD we all perceive, what's the point of criticizing my liberal use of the word "magnetic?"

As long as we understand each other, isn't that of most importance?

  • Dick
23

Dick To Dean... I already discussed the points below in posts to Frode.
I think if you really consider the bold face below, you'll get my point, whether you agree with it or not. It was Frode's use of magnetic "field" that I failed to notice. So far as I can recall I had not used "magnetic FIELD" in my prior emails to him or you. If I did, it was a mistake. Will you guys forgive me?
-Dick (too much splitting semantic hairs going on here.)

24

Re: DickToDean: Magnetic fields, centrifugal force
Ralph,

That info on the disappearance of the Eskimo village, in that sudden way, without a trace, is really puzzling me. there seems to be some similarity with the Franklin disaster in that there was some violence, but hardly a trace or clue as to what happened. I doubt that the hollow Earthers wouldjust come out and murder people- maybe the source of the assault was underground or from above, from a hostile UFO craft. I mean, I don't know, I am grasping at straws.

Somebody should get a hold of that Franklin book, though. the author has a theory. I bet that the author thought it was a UFO.

Dharma/Dean

25

Re: DickToDean: Magnetic fields, centrifugal forceSeigmeister/Raymond Bernard quotes Reed:

WHY IT IS WARMER NEAR THE POLES.

"One of the principal proofs that the earth is hollow is that it is warmer near the Poles. If it can be shown by quoting those who made the farthest advance toward the supposed Poles, that it is warmer, that vegetation shows more life, that game is more plentiful than farther south, then we have a reasonable right to claim that the heat comes from the interior of the earth, as that seems to be the only place from which it could come.

"In `Captain Hall's Last Trip,' we read: `We find this a much warmer country than we expected, bare of snow and ice. We have found that the country abounds with life, and with seals, game, geese, ducks, musk-cattle, rabbits, wolves, foxes, bears, partridges, lemmings, etc. (He is speaking of the far north.)

"Nansen draws special attention to the warmth and says, `We must almost imagine ourselves at home.' This was at one of the farthest points north reached by anyone, and yet the weather was mild and pleasant.

"It will be observed that these extremely strong winds from the interior of the earth not only raise the temperature considerably in the vicinity of the Arctic Ocean, but affect it very materially four hundred and fifty miles away. Nothing could raise the temperature in such a manner, except a storm coming from the interior of the earth.

"Greely states: `Surely this presence of birds and flowers and beasts was a greeting on nature's part to our new home.' Does that sound as if he had expected to find these things there, or that their presence was an everyday occurrence? No. It was written in a tone of surprise. From what place had these birds and game come? South of them for miles, the earth was covered with perpetual snow - in many locations thousands of feet deep. They are found in that location in summer; and as it is warmer farther north, they would not be likely to go to a colder climate in winter. They seem to pass into the interior of the earth.

"The mutton-birds of Australia leave that continent in September, and no one has ever been able to find out where they go. My theory is that they pass into the interior of the earth via the South Pole. "

Reed points out that many animals inhabiting the far north, as the musk-ox, go north in winter in order to reach a warmer climate. He remarks:

"Since it becomes warmer as they go north, instinct tells them not to go south in winter. And if they do not go south, they must go into the interior of the earth."

Another animal that goes north in winter is the auk. Schwatka saw a flock of four million auks, which darken the sky, going north as winter approached. Nansen says of the extreme north that a land which teems with bears, auks and black guillemots "must be a Canaan, flowing with milk and honey."

Members,

This migration Northwards as winter approaches is amazing. The significance in relation to an opening to the inner world is obvious.

The warming phenomenon is widespread and typical, take my word for it.

Dharma/Dean

26

Re: DickToDean: Magnetic fields, centrifugal forceMembers-

Nansen also encountered birds way far out over the ice. It was not the promimity of land as much as it was the proximity of the opening:

Page 99: " We have almost reached 78* ... I seemed to me that there might be land at no great distance, we saw such a number of remarkable number of birds of various kinds. ... They were probably on their passage from some land in the North. ... Again, later, we saw small flocks of snipe, indicating the possible proximity of land."

DD

27

Re: DickToDean: Magnetic fields, centrifugal forceDean: I mentioned to you some time ago about that story. I just didn't remember where I read it. I think it was printed in a book by Frank Edward on the paranormal. Anyway I did a search on it. I am not sure if they went willingly or not. I thought it was very strange where the dead also went along. There were also reports of other villages that have disappeared. I think one in England. I just wonder the exact location on Lake Anjikuni and how close it is to the pole and if people still live there today. I didn't find anything else on this From: Ralph

28

Original subject: Disappearances in the Arctic

UFOMAN wrote:

Eskimo village,

Have you guys read this yet?
http://members.tripod.com/XianRex/hollow/part6.htm

29

Fundamentals

I am using several. One of them is "the Hutchinson Pocket
Dictionary of Science". It is a little more detailed then the
definition you use above, but is says the same thing. Your book
doesn't say anything about "magnetic" used in a gravity context,
does it?

We are talking about some deep scientific stuff here so why
should you at least not pretend to be a scientist? Being a
scientist today is seen as something close to unattainable. But
in the past scientists were just curios peoples like you and me.

LOL!! :slight_smile:

planet?

I am in favor of Cater, but I am also open for other possibilities. It
is to late for me today to give you a definition of Cater's idea of
gravity.

"magnetic?"

Well. Words are symbols, or pegs if you will, for percepts and
concepts that hopefully is not just imaginary. When you use the
same peg for different concepts that appear to be similar but
isn't,then that peg (word) will lose its specific meaning. I think
that you will agree that it is easier to communicate and think with
words that only have one specific meaning. Language as a
valuable tool for thinking an communicating will gradually be
destroyed if the meaning of a symbol (word) is different in the
mind of different people. There is an ongoing conscious effort
going on on this planet to destroy language so that people will
be less able to think for themselves. If we are not going to lose
that battle we have to take semantics seriously.

Maybe!!

:slight_smile:

Frode

  • Dick
30

Scott,

I really appreciate you effort, and I think that you communicate
this well. I personally feel that the problem is me. I have not
immersed myself enough into this. And I am sure that it is not
easy for Dean either as he also lack the necessary training.

My problem is this:

I don't understand why you insist that inertia and mass has to be
considered when you deal with the planets. Planets move in a
constant speed, they experience no (almost non) acceleration
and/or retardation. When a planet is moving at constant speed
then the inertia of that planet doesn't have any effect on that
speed, right? I understand that you have to take mass and the
inertia into account when you talk about bullets and rockets, but
how is this connected to the mechanics of planetary motion?

Frode

31

Frode replied to Dick Aug 3rd.(Just Frode following)...

that battle we have to take semantics seriously.
--------------------------

Dick to Frode... All you wrote above is very true. Agree completely. I read Korzybski too, long ago. From that reading I came to suspect that MANY in orthodox science (as everywhere else) often sloppily use WORDS and LABELS that represent no reality, no clear picture, even in their own minds.

One word that constantly flows out of every mouth and writing is "ENERGY." I've recently read otherwise logical science writings that say "ENERGY" passes between Electrons in atoms. Amazing. No one clearly defines WHAT this "energy" is. Instead the word is often DEFINED with other words like photons, light, electrons, etc, and they with the word "energy."

Look up just about any science explanation or theory, orthodox and unorthodox, and the word "energy" is liberally used. From the SMALLEST particle conceived, "energy" passes to and from, or is created and generated between, from or around even the smallest particles..No matter how small the conceived particle or "vibration," "energy" seems something even smaller. Yet none seem to suggest "energy" may be SPIRIT, "something" non-material, that AFFECTS matter. No atheistic scientist would dare suggest that.

You may disagree but it seems to me that the word ENERGY really represents nothing REAL or substantial, just a convenient label used to represent something very vague.

Another word liberally used word is GRAVITY. Finally got to it, Frode!

I'm not interested right now about Cater's DEFINITION for Gravity. Already read a lot about that. Frode, I'd like to know YOUR personal definition and explanation of earth's GRAVITY, when you have some time. Okay?

  • Dick
32

Re: DickToDean: Magnetic fields, centrifugal force
George Adamski gave a complete explanation for the habitability on the more distant planets, and the following is taken from his book, Flying Saucers Farewell.

" One of the most frequent problems encountered when giving a lecture on space is the insistence of scientists that the outer planets are devoid of light and heat. Their objection is that radiation from the sun is so weak at these vast distances that Pluto, for instance, would be at absolute zero or close to it, with a frozen atmosphere, and totally incapable of supporting life-forms of any type.

This is the main argument brought against me when doubt is expressed about my meeting human beings from some of these other planets.

The first thing to realize is that the sun does not emit light and heat in the form we observe here on Earth. Radiation from the sun does not manifest itself as light and heat until it penetrates the atmospheres of the planets themselves. Outer space is devoid of light as we know it. The light in outer space is a cold light caused by the phosphorescence of vast clouds of particles and gases responding to the radiation given off by the sun. To a human observer, outer space looks like a dark, vast void, filled with billions upon billions of tiny specks of multicolored light. All of these tiny lights are in a state of continuous motion and activity.

Radiation from the sun is composed of ultra­violet light, hard and soft X-rays, cosmic and gamma rays. The greater portion of these destructive rays are filtered out by a planet's ionosphere and upper atmosphere."

33

science

LOL!! :slight_smile:

Dick,

I would flunk you! Gravity isn't magnetism. Take a pill and go watch Bugs
Bunny, like that guy told me the other day.

( I took his advice ).

Dean

34

Members-

There is an interesting poll up about the Moon.

Dharma/Dean

35

Dean posted... George Adamski gave a complete explanation for the habitability on the more distant planets, and the following is taken from his book, Flying Saucers Farewell.

" One of the most frequent problems encountered when giving a lecture on space is the insistence of scientists that the outer planets are devoid of light and heat. Their objection is that radiation from the sun is so weak at these vast distances that Pluto, for instance, would be at absolute zero or close to it, with a frozen atmosphere, and totally incapable of supporting life‑forms of any type.

This is the main argument brought against me when doubt is expressed about my meeting human beings from some of these other planets.

The first thing to realize is that the sun does not emit light and heat in the form we observe here on Earth. Radiation from the sun does not manifest itself as light and heat until it penetrates the atmospheres of the planets themselves. Outer space is devoid of light as we know it. The light in outer space is a cold light caused by the phosphorescence of vast clouds of particles and gases responding to the radiation given off by the sun. To a human observer, outer space looks like a dark, vast void, filled with billions upon billions of tiny specks of multicolored light. All of these tiny lights are in a state of continuous motion and activity.

Radiation from the sun is composed of ultra­violet light, hard and soft X‑rays, cosmic and gamma rays. The greater portion of these destructive rays are filtered out by a planet's ionosphere and upper atmosphere."

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

Dean,
The above is VERY interesting data from Adamski. Thanks.

  • Dick
36

Constant speed, but constantly changing velocity. Acceleration is the
rate of change of velocity. The planets are always accelerating towards
the sun. The rate at which they do so depends on their mass.

Inertia is that property of a mass which resists acceleration. It
therefore dictates how much acceleration there will be when a mass is
subjected to a (indeed, any) force.

--
http://i.am/getting_married
ICQ 40628243 Tel 07092057581 Fax 08707345230

37

Dean wrote about Dick's following email comment to Frode...

science

-------------------
To Dean, the "Dean" of Cater University.....
Then I, in turn, would flunk you for misunderstanding - and for narrowing definitions of common words.

"Gravity isn't magnetism." Dean, I never wrote "gravity is magnetism" so far as I recall. Your choice of the word "magnetism" seems out of place. If you meant "Gravity" isn't (something) MAGNETIC - or "Gravity" isn't a MAGNETIC FORCE, your coupling of words might have improved your assertion. If you had, you would be in error, in my opinion. You seem to be "splitting hairs" communicating about the word - and concept - of "Gravity."

Referring again to Jastrow & Thompson, they defined "GRAVITY" briefly as "The attraction of one mass to another; one of the basic forces in the physical universe."

Dean, if "attraction" does NOT suggest Magnetic Force or "Charge" within or permeating a (assumed larger) mass, attracting similar magnetic "charge" in another (smaller) mass, then just what is it? A "love affair" between SOLIDS? - "I want to join you BIG guy."? Please PICTURE what I've just written..

"Gravity... (attracting).... is one of the basic forces of the physical universe." they wrote. Somehow, Dean, "splitting hairs," you've persuaded yourself this described ACTION of "attraction" is not "magnetic." I disagree.

Cater appears to describe his soft particles "changing" (after some 50 miles down) to become "gravity inducing," which seems to imply creation of some "force," or "radiation" or "charge," that ATTRACTS or DRAWS TO IT, physical elements. Yet, that ATTRACTING ACTION cannot be referred to as "magnetic" in your view?

In effect, Cater's soft particles at 50 miles down, seem to produce a (artificial?) SOURCE of "Gravity." at that depth. Or am I in error stating the preceding for Cater's "gravity inducing" effect? If I am in error, precisely WHAT is "gravity inducing" doing?

Clearly, the SOURCE of Gravity, to J & T and most orthodox scientists, is one (Big) mass "attracting" another (smaller) mass.
OR, in terms of our Earth with J & T (and Newton), the BIG mass of Earth's body attracting all the smaller masses on the surface and above.
Earth's body is the SOURCE of Eath's "Force of Gravity," they appear to believe.

I've already written to Frode that I disagree in part with their above simplistic definition belief about masses attracting masses. I know you do too, for reasons other than mine.

Earth's "FORCE OF GRAVITY" originates WHERE, Dean?

Where is the SOURCE of that FORCE? Every loose object (with and without metals) and physical element on the surface and above, appears to "gravitate" downward onto Earth's surface ...OR attempting to reach someWHERE beneath the surface, prevented only by density from moving to that "WHERE."

An exception seems to be Cater's universal soft "particles," capable of easily passing through ANY material density, without slowing down much until quite deep in the crust..
("Splitting hairs" myself, I disapprove of Cater's choice of the word "particles" - hard or soft - when those "particles" seem capable of passing unobstructed through ANY physical universe material "particle." In my opinion, better communicating might have been his using the labels of SOFT AND HARD "ENERGY." Science's elusive "Energy" is probably capable of passing through any and all material objects and "particles," and outer space as well! Afterall, I've recently read "energy" described as apparently smaller than those tiny little electrons!)

Defined and described as I have done many times now, in my opinion the SOURCE of earth's "FORCE OF GRAVITY" attracting earth's material elements, appears to be a "MAGNET" (of sorts) located somewhere below 50 miles from the surface. That "magnet" ATTRACTS and therefore is in real world effect, "magnetic" to all of earth's material elements.

In conclusion, Dean, it seems to me that your insistence that GRAVITY has nothing to do with MAGNETIC attraction, is incorrect.
I hope I have provided persuasive arguments for my viewpoint in the preceding paragraphs. If you agree (at least in part), maybe you were hasty in having flunked me.
----------------------------

Former student who only takes vitamins and minerals.
Maybe YOU should get off that "pill" you were prescribed! Apparently poor advice!

  • Dick Fojut
38

---------------------
Dick to Frode... A specific answer to your question above is in the following email I just sent to Dean after he flunked me. Check the paragraph below starting: "Referring again to Jastrow & Thompson...." AND my entire email to Dean presenting my reasoning. Thanks. - Dick
---------------------

-------------------
To Dean, the "Dean" of Cater University.....
Then I, in turn, would flunk you for misunderstanding - and for narrowing definitions of common words.

"Gravity isn't magnetism." Dean, I never wrote "gravity is magnetism" so far as I recall. Your choice of the word "magnetism" seems out of place. If you meant "Gravity" isn't (something) MAGNETIC - or "Gravity" isn't a MAGNETIC FORCE, your coupling of words might have improved your assertion. If you had, you would be in error, in my opinion. You seem to be "splitting hairs" communicating about the word - and concept - of "Gravity."

Referring again to Jastrow & Thompson, they defined "GRAVITY" briefly as "The attraction of one mass to another; one of the basic forces in the physical universe."

Dean, if "attraction" does NOT suggest Magnetic Force or "Charge" within, or permeating a (assumed larger) mass, attracting similar magnetic "charge" in another (smaller) mass, then just what is it? A "love affair" between SOLIDS? - "I want to join you BIG guy."? Please PICTURE what I've just written..

"Gravity... (attracting).... is one of the basic forces of the physical universe." they wrote. Somehow, Dean, "splitting hairs," you've persuaded yourself this described ACTION of "attraction" is not "magnetic." I disagree.

Cater appears to describe his soft particles "changing" (after some 50 miles down) to become "gravity inducing," which seems to imply creation of some "force," or "radiation" or "charge," that ATTRACTS or DRAWS TO IT, physical elements. Yet, that ATTRACTING ACTION cannot be referred to as "magnetic" in your view?

In effect, Cater's soft particles at 50 miles down, seem to produce a (artificial?) SOURCE of "Gravity." at that depth. Or am I in error stating the preceding for Cater's "gravity inducing" effect? If I am in error, precisely WHAT is "gravity inducing" doing?

Clearly, the SOURCE of Gravity, to J & T and most orthodox scientists, is one (Big) mass "attracting" another (smaller) mass.
OR, in terms of our Earth with J & T (and Newton), the BIG mass of Earth's body attracting all the smaller masses on the surface and above.
Earth's body is the SOURCE of Eath's "Force of Gravity," they appear to believe.

I've already written to Frode that I disagree in part with their above simplistic definition belief about masses attracting masses. I know you do too, for reasons other than mine.

Earth's "FORCE OF GRAVITY" originates WHERE, Dean?

Where is the SOURCE of that FORCE? Every loose object (with and without metals) and physical element on the surface and above, appears to "gravitate" downward onto Earth's surface ...OR attempting to reach someWHERE beneath the surface, prevented only by density from moving to that "WHERE."

An exception seems to be Cater's universal soft "particles," capable of easily passing through ANY material density, without slowing down much until quite deep in the crust..
("Splitting hairs" myself, I disapprove of Cater's choice of the word "particles" - hard or soft - when those "particles" seem capable of passing unobstructed through ANY physical universe material "particle." In my opinion, better communicating might have been his using the labels of SOFT AND HARD "ENERGY." Science's elusive "Energy" is probably capable of passing through any and all material objects and "particles," and outer space as well! Afterall, I've recently read "energy" described as apparently smaller than those tiny little electrons!)

Defined and described as I have done many times now, in my opinion the SOURCE of earth's "FORCE OF GRAVITY" attracting earth's material elements, appears to be a "MAGNET" (of sorts) located somewhere below 50 miles from the surface. That "magnet" ATTRACTS and therefore is in real world effect, "magnetic" to all of earth's material elements.

In conclusion, Dean, it seems to me that your insistence that GRAVITY has nothing to do with MAGNETIC attraction, is incorrect.
I hope I have provided persuasive arguments for my viewpoint in the preceding paragraphs. If you agree (at least in part), maybe you were hasty in having flunked me.
----------------------------

Former student who only takes vitamins and minerals.
Maybe YOU should get off that "pill" you were prescribed! Apparently poor advice!

  • Dick Fojut
39

Dean... thanks for your extensive answers to my questions below about Cater. Just got around to printing them off this AM to read properly. Will digest and get back to you about them if needed. - Dick

40

Dick,

I apologize for roasting you about your choice of terms.

But really, gravity and the term " magnetic " are usually used
separately. I think that to describe gravity in that way you would
want to say something like " gravity exhibits an almost magnetic
attraction."

Anyway, I am going to drop the issue, you´ve got enough problems, or
will shortly, as soon as I start answering some of your other e-
mails.

# ; ^ )

DD