Cream - Wheels Of Fire - THOSE WERE THE DAYS lyrics:
by Ginger Baker and Mike Taylor
When the city of Atlantis stood serene above the sea,
Long time before our time when the world was free,
Those were the days.
Golden cymbals flying on ocarina sounds,
Before wild Medusa's serpents gave birth to hell
Disguised as heaven.
Those were the days, yes they were, those were the days.
Those were their ways, miracles everywhere, are they now?
They're gone.
Those were their ways, yes they were, those were their ways.
Those were the days, yes they were, those were the days.
Tie your painted shoes and dance, blue daylight in your hair,
Overhead a noiseless eagle fans a flame.
Wonder everywhere.
Those were the days, yes they were, those were the days.
Those were their ways, miracles everywhere, are they now?
They're gone.
Those were their ways, yes they were, those were their ways.
Those were the days, yes they were, those were the days.
From the David Ross book, UFOs and the Complete Evidence from Space
The Viking 1 lander was released from the main orbiter,
and went down to a landing on the Chryse Plain on July 20,
1976. A parachute was used to brake the 1200 pound lander as
it plunged to the surface. We can understand a parachute
working in the Earth's atmosphere of several hundred
millibars pressure. But since NASA stated that the surface
pressure on Mars is only 7 millibars, and less than a
millibar a few miles up, what inflated the parachute and
caused any kind of drag to slow down the descending lander?
The answer is simple: the same dense atmosphere that was
photographed during the telescopic studies, and the same one
that the NASA censors deny is there.
Scott sent me a very hateful and nasty post on another list, and I felt the
need to answer him in the following way. Maybe I shouldn't bring this kind
of thing up, butI'm just surprised at all the hate directed towards me.
Apparently, he doesn't tolerate other opinons well.
Here it is:
Scott,
You said-
So, Dean, I may be harsh with you but perhaps someday you will, perhaps not
join me in my views, but
at least recognize why I am that way
How about " no." I wanted to give you ansewers because, otherwise, it might
look to these people that I don't have any. They don't know me so well and
haven't followed my threads on other lists. But now let'stalkabout
attitudes.
What do you mean by the above? That you are going to be sarcastic, snide and
hateful and then at the end, justify it all by saying that it was all with
the best intentions because I needed it? I don't accept that.
Just so that the others know, you and I have communicated a lot along these
lines, the fact that I have arguments, and what they are, is no surprise to
you. they are good arguments, and there is logic to them- they could even be
wrong, but still, there is some substance to the logic which I have
presented.
Nor was the theme of the comments off topic- Jan's biggest chapter was
devoted to gravity, and I quotes a respected authority and brought up a good
point or two.
As such, I didn't deserve your hateful, sarcastic comments in the least.
That was just coming from you, there was nothing to merit your outburst. You
should have dealt with the statements without all that baggae. I mean,
really, it was high school stuff.
What do you think that the average list member thought of your comments. I'm
sure that a good many of them really disapproved. I really don't haveto say
much.You showed your true colors and waned pale, I believe. You may
selfrighteiously fool yourself into thinking that someone is actually going
to think that all of those unnecessary and hatefulcomments were justified,
butthey all form their own opinons.
I am so offended that I am going to bring the post over to the
allplanets-hollow list and show the members there how you have dealt with
me. A lot of them have been with me for a long while and are
well-wishers.They might find it very interesting to see how I have been
dealt with by you here.
Here is Scott's post in answer to my initialcomments-
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 22:39:31 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:
I also had an idea regarding Hollow Earth formation
which I want to throw Scott's way, and everyone else's
way.
I'm wondering if we can't PROVE, with a simple
formula, that all planets are hollow? Its a simple
idea. Hear me out.
Centrifugal force is a function of angular momentum
and distance from the centre.
Gravity is a function of mass.
Jan,
The Jury is not out yet on gravity. I feel so uncomfortable with the
idea that gravity is related to mass. I feel it is anethema to the HET.
Dean, If you are not prepared to show how it is an anathema
through the use of computer analysis and some more technical
hard core calculations, then I'm sorry, but I will have to ask for
your "lay scientists card" to be turned in. This will not allow you
to further preach to the choir how everything is supposed to be
without more evidence than you have displayed so far.
Notice that clouds don't fall, they are very heavy in relation to the air
which they displace, yet they float. If gravity were related to mass, then
the accumulated superior weight of the Earth's shell would tend to
collapse inwards in most hollow planet models.
Actually, I realize that you left open this possibility in your book, you
seemed to point out that gravity may not obey the same set of rules
in all scenarios.
Let me cross post this old post by you in case I never sent it to
this list. It quotes Dr. Pari Spolter in her book The Gravitational Force
of
the Sun. She makes some good points-
The post:
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 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,
How could it be any other way Dean? I am a bit amazed at
your paranoia on this gravity thing! What for instance could
ever be solid evidence that the force of gravity even exists?
If we don't associate gravity with its effects on mass, what
else could gravity be?
I'll make you a deal Dean. If you can isolate this frequency that is
supposed
to be the causality of the force of gravity, then I pledge to never say
another
word to you about Newton or the mass product concept. This would require
that you define how this experimental proof can be duplicated by others and
frankly, I think it would be great. I would make my own little antigravity
jet pack and go exploring. It would make my day! We could put all the
fossil fuel cartel boys out of business practically overnight.
This is only reasonable.
Reason must be provable and demonstrable or one is just whistling Dixie.
At some point the frequency will meet forces opposed and diminish or
change in
some way.
Do you know this for a fact Dean? I make open confession that my own ideas
are
just that, ideas about what is going on in the center of the Earth. I
theorize about
concepts like anybody else but you yourself make use of the most hazy
imprecise
language and then state with unabashed certainty that that is the fact of
the matter.
Does anyone else note how ridiculous this seems or is it just me? You have
to be
more convincing than you are.
The universe is always dynamic, full of change. So why wouldn't gravity
change as it penetrates a planet?
I find this bit of logic obtuse. I myself have a large deal of respect for
absolutes. If we did
not have them then the laws of physics could change on a dime and although
that might
seem attractive to those who only wish to ease their loads, I want nothing
to do with it! I
find a form of comfort that the rules of the universe always keep my feet on
solid ground.
If things change, let us be more specific and scientifically verifiable
about it. We ought to be
able to show how things change and that there exists a direct relationship
between the cause
and the effect and not wax poetic about something. Yes, things might change
but you are
void of anything to latch onto in these explanations.
If you don't know what causes gravity, you can't say that it would be
uniform throughout
a planet's diameter and therefore you can't say that gravity is a function
of mass. Mass can
exist without exhibiting gravity effects, and gravity can exhibit
repulsion ( clouds, UFOs ).
How shall one NOT be able to suggest that gravity penetrates the Earth
uniformly? If objects
that have mass respond with practically universal consistency in the real
world to what we term
the laws of gravity, where do you get this idea that you can annul the mass
gravity function?
I mean correct me if I am wrong, but the last time I looked it was not radio
waves or light or
any other of the myriad forms of the electromagnetic spectrum that are even
susceptible to the
the laws of gravity. It is MASS! Then Dean states that mass has nothing to
do with gravity?
He must be pulling our legs!
Again, I have not seen Deans mathematical calculations that prove this point
for him. This sounds like
pure fairy tales to me. He hasn't been there. Nobody else has in a
documented scientific venture. He
claims all this weight would implode the place, but where are his
calculations? Rodney and I used to
trade e-mails and though the math might have been simple to one who was a
professor of astro-mechanics
at an ivy league college, we did at least search out the handle by which
nature could be quantified and
expressed in scientific terms. Dean, on the other hand is doing a mass
propaganda exercise to make
everyone believe what he believes and I haven't seen one twit of math to
substantiate it. THAT IS
WHAT MAKES ME UNEASY. I wish he had the guts to check out my latest program
edition on the
hollow planet theory. He would see me at my inspired best. I have no
degree but right or wrong
I have endeavored to measure things as best I can and to the limit of
understanding which I no doubt
have. Dean drives me NUTS with his, "Oh you know, gravity is a radiation
and it only penetrates
50 miles. What I loathe about the universal view which so inspires him is
that there is no way I see
to make my particular contribution to the hollow earth "PUSH". Can we know
or deign to measure a
spiritual happenstance? No, surely not. We are beings of flesh and blood
and that limits a portion of
our insight. What I love about the constantly bashed Newtons of this world
is that they at least tried to
get to the point and measure the real world. It is my belief that given
enough understanding of the ways
and means of the universe, one could predict, through calculations a billion
fold more complex than the
tribbling level I strive to master, the future if enough variables were
known and could be trusted.
With Dean's way of looking at things, this view or even possibility
gets thrown out the window.
So, Dean, I may be harsh with you but perhaps someday you will, perhaps not
join me in my views, but
at least recognize why I am that way. It is a great joy to me to try this
and think of some other way
that by calculation or formula, the HET could become proven to not only the
lay person but the scientist
as well.
Please try to be a true scientific student Dean! Emulate the
scientific method. Question the
foundations of your own assumptions as I do. That is the only way short of
going into the Earth itself
that we will ever be able to prove to academia at large that our theory is
worth its salt in.... salt! I
get happy when Jan or someone thinks of my computer skills and suggests a
project in which the
scientific method could be employed.
Scott
PS to the other list members: Why don't we get everybody on the list to
sign a petition requiring Dean to
look over my latest Multi program. He has refused for reasons I cannot
figure. I tell him that it is free
and that I won't mind if he finds it incorrect. At least then, he can
proudly state that he is OPEN MINDED.
This is a trait he probably thinks that I lack. He can prove to everybody
that he is my equal or better
when it comes to considering all sides. We could boycott Dean's polls until
he does. What do you say list?
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!
Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished work
in progress, AND
To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the program.