Mass vs Electrogravitics

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
1

OK here goes a rambling expulsion on my understanding of gravity and
why I feel so. Please correct me.

The way that I see it, Gravity is both an effect of mass and electro-
magnetic radiation. This is the fundamental explanation to include
the effects of extreme densities, such as black holes, and the
allowance for Electrogravitic vehicles to appear to be antigravitic,
yet mearly be manipulating laws, ( little understood or explained by
"modern" physics ) , which allow for repulsive travel away from mass
charges of the opposite.

Why does the central sun float at the center of the void ? There it
has an equal non attraction from the surrounding "earth charged
electromagnetic field", as well as being at the center of surrounding
mass which effectively leaves it at zero G, or a floating microgravity
fluctuating by outer shell movements.

If the earth was only one fourth hollow at the center, as you traveled
downward the mass surrounding would gradually cancel out the effects
of gravity as you approached the center of the mass, until there was
zero gravity , at the center of the void.

Any object cast into the void with sufficient force to pass into the
exact center and not pass to far into the void as to approach too
closely to the opposite side , would oscillate between the extremities
until it came to rest at near zero G or microG at the very center.

This may explain the central "sun" , which is a charge of accumulated
soft particles at the center of the void, continually recharged by the
suns energy.

To say that gravity is ONLY caused by mass or ONLY the result of
electromagnetic radiation, is to ignore the commonly observed
reactions of the movement of bodies or the oft times observed "lift
off" of a styrofoam cup in my microwave oven.

Or maybe I am being too simplistic, and do not see the gravity of the
situation.

dave haynes

2

Any object cast into the void with sufficient force to pass into the
exact center and not pass to far into the void as to approach too
closely to the opposite side , would oscillate between the extremities
until it came to rest at near zero G or microG at the very center.

This may explain the central "sun" , which is a charge of accumulated
soft particles at the center of the void, continually recharged by the
suns energy.

To say that gravity is ONLY caused by mass or ONLY the result of
electromagnetic radiation, is to ignore the commonly observed
reactions of the movement of bodies or the oft times observed "lift
off" of a styrofoam cup in my microwave oven.

Well, you need mass to carry the charge, but it is the charge more than
anything which is responsible. Consider the following from Chapter 12 of
Cater's book:

" 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 foflows 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 mae winer, 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 inerha 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."

Or maybe I am being too simplistic, and do not see the gravity of the
situation.

Your jokes are worse than mine.

Dharma/Dean

ยทยทยท

dave haynes

3

Leslee,

Have you gotten to chapte six of Cater's book? It's an easy one. He outlines
his HE geological model. Mr. Cater outlines that soft particles pass through
the shell of the Earth, congregate in the center of the cavity as the inner
sun which expells more soft particles through the polar orifices which break
down and become visible as they spew out.

Late,

Dharma/Dean

4

--- In allplanets-hollow@y..., "Dean De Lucia" <0108@t...> wrote:

> Any object cast into the void with sufficient force to pass into

the

> exact center and not pass to far into the void as to approach too
> closely to the opposite side , would oscillate between the

extremities

> until it came to rest at near zero G or microG at the very center.
>
> This may explain the central "sun" , which is a charge of

accumulated

> soft particles at the center of the void, continually recharged by

the

> suns energy.
>
> To say that gravity is ONLY caused by mass or ONLY the result of
> electromagnetic radiation, is to ignore the commonly observed
> reactions of the movement of bodies or the oft times observed

"lift

> off" of a styrofoam cup in my microwave oven.

Well, you need mass to carry the charge, but it is the charge more

than

anything which is responsible. Consider the following from Chapter

12 of

Cater's book:

" 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 foflows 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 mae winer, 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 inerha 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."

> Or maybe I am being too simplistic, and do not see the gravity of

the

> situation.

Your jokes are worse than mine.

Dharma/Dean

> dave haynes

I am much like the man who would not jump into the void because of my
miseducation of conventional wisdom. My paradigm shift is stuck in
first gear, but at least I am not totally shiftless, since I still
have neutral and reverse.

I am wary of keeping an open mind lest I revert to operating from a
brain stem if the main processor were to fall out. Thankfully I can
still rely upon auxiliary processors of the male system which often
lead me to dangerous liaisons if relied upon too often.

I am learning to challenge EVERYTHING that I have supposed as
"the truth", having only a modicum of understanding of the true nature
of reality. Let me stare reality straight into the face, even if the
truth destroys my very existence. I truly believe that all things are
possible, that what we sense is but a small part of what is. Worlds
within worlds, dimensions within dimensions, space folded crosses all
creation in a twinkling of an eye. Life throughout the universe, of
such varied forms from ethereal to biological at all stages of
ascension, comprehension, technical ability, and accomplishment.
Truly an amazing CREATION, in which, though I travel the distance of a
stars life at the speed of fright, I would have only journeyed from
the front door to the mail box , on a cosmic scale. I look forward to
transition with no fear of "death".

dave haynes