Dean,
I am not deluded. The proof of which is in my steadfast attempt
to
adhere to the scientific method and in my seeking out the most logical
and
incidentally well established facts and examples in nature and physics
that I
can find. You don't care about the scientific method. If you did you
would not defiantly state that you need no computer analysis or program
to test out your theories on gravity. A theory must be falsifiable or
else
it fails the test of being considered a "scientific" theory.
Laboratory experiments have proven that a voltage of 10 to the
14th
power volts is required to cause ordinary matter (mass) to stop obeying
the
laws of inertia. I am aware of no such voltage being measured
scientifically
and reported at that strength below the Earth's surface.
I liken your talk of this gravity force from the Sun as purely
ridiculous
when you actually question why there would be any inertia if the Sun
wasn't
interacting with the "cork". It is my opinion that the reason you have
made
such an attack on my mental state is that you are desperate to find
anything
that can counter my arguments, some of which by the way you never
confronted.
Your idea of matter and mass is very strange. Just imagine this
quick simple
example: We are down deep below the earth and someone takes a bit of
this
cork material and puts it into a sling shot. Any sane person would
automatically
fear such a projectile being aimed at their head even in the area in
which you claim
the cork receives no gravity radiation from the Sun. You appear to
believe that
such an object is both weightless and not subject to the law of inertia.
Who would
be suffering from delusions, a person who believes that since this cork
is weightless
and without inertia it could not harm him were that person shot at or the
person who
naturally believes that a sling shot or gun operated anywhere would harm
them?
Which person are you Dean?
Here is another example: You state that the cork would be
weightless and
free of inertia. Inertia is defined as the tendency of a mass to stay in
motion or at
rest until acted on by outside forces. Consider with me how the
astronauts in space
are indeed aware of having the illusion of weightlessness, but in every
interview I
have ever heard with one of them they state that although a heavy object
(on earth)
appears to be weightless in space it still is not a "piece of cake" so to
speak to
manipulate. They have great difficulty moving it around and then
stopping it once
it is in motion.
You made no attempt whatsoever to answer the inequalities
involved in your
gravity theory. I already covered a situation where you were deep below
the surface
and someone pointed a gun at your head. Would you truly believe that a
bullet fired
at you (within the cork) would encounter your clothing and stop dead in
its tracks,
simply because it weighs nothing and has no inertia or force behind it?
Rare is the
example where an actual cessation of inertia exists. UFO reports where
the presumed
occupants fly at incredible speeds only to stop on a dime or make full
speed right angle
turns is one example of this. I have the idea that if a bullet were
aimed at you within
this cork layer you would not exhibit any confidence that this inertia
less bullet would
not harm you. This is an instinctual reaction. Regardless of your
statements to the
contrary human experience proves that your theory of matter without
inertia is unfounded.
The laws of inertia would still operate there whether it be from the
inertia imposed by a
gun or from the velocity of our orbiting planet (18.5 mps)
The odds are on my side Dean. Submit our discussion to the group
or to any
academic scientist and I can tell you now that they will not imagine the
law of inertia
and accelerated force inherent in matter will disappear because your
radiation from the
Sun didn't penetrate into the "cork". You have somehow managed to
suggest that
gravity and inertia are inseparably connected and that if one is absent
the other will
be absent as well. I have shown conclusively that they are not.
Lets put my example in a slightly different light. Maybe you
then will be able
to see your mistake. I used inertia which I term as any body of mass in
movement
relative to the Sun. A simpler illustration would be centrifugal force.
Any object
experiences this reaction if it is spun on a string. You certainly will
admit that
astronauts and military pilots in training experience a force so intense
that they cannot
even move when spun inside a centrifuge. They even black out at times
due to
constriction of blood vessels carrying vital oxygenated hemoglobin to
their brain and
vision centers. If this centrifuge were located within the cork where
you state that
inertia doesn't exist because of being unconnected with the gravity
radiation from
the Sun, I suppose that you would expect the astronauts to be spun around
in circles
and not realize any of the effects they would feel on the surface. This
is an impossible
situation Dean. The law of centrifugal force would exhibit itself
anywhere in the universe.
Having shown that centrifugal force exists everywhere, lets
assume for a moment
that the gravitational radiation from the Sun doesn't penetrate into the
cork. It would
not have any effect on the cork matter which is itself, like it or not,
orbiting the Sun in
much the same way that the astronauts do in the centrifuge. I cannot see
how you can
miss this distinction, Dean. For every action in the universe there is
an equal and opposite
reaction. The masses that are spun on a string must have the strength of
the string to
maintain a stable orbit around a persons hand otherwise the string
breaks. The string is
symbolic of gravity. Your theory of gravity would be of a string that
was too weak
to hold the centrifugal force of the Earth from leaving the solar system.
The action of
centrifugal force MUST exist in a one to one relationship with the
gravity force. How
can it be in dispute that a stable orbit depends on an exact balance
between gravity
and centrifugal force?
According to your theory only a portion of the total number of
atoms that make
up the Earth interact with this radiation from the Sun. You hold that
this makes them
experience a gravitational attraction toward the Sun. For the atoms
which you claim
to be weightless or non interactive with the Sun's force, what is to be
the balance of
forces for them? You cannot state that since they are weightless, they
do not experience
either gravity force or inertial force since I have stated previously
that the astronauts
DO contend with the inertia of weightless mass in low Earth orbit and
this of course
would include centrifugal force.
This entire debate in a nutshell stems from the fact that since
all bodies that have
the trait of centrifugal force, something must be there to balance this
force. Your theory
does not match the observed phenomenon. If it did we would have the
Earth moving
continually further away from the Sun with only a minor percentage of the
mass of the
entire planet involved in a gravitational reaction to the Sun retarding
this action.
I will now ask you to show me where my logic is not flawless.
Everything I have
presented is an observable phenomenon in physics, nature and human
experience.
You, on the other hand, have no use for computer analysis and
mathematical computation
and the reason I suspect that this is the case is that you fear, perhaps
subconsciously,
that I am right and that you truly don't have the confidence in Cater's
theories that you
boast of.
Tell me one instance where my foundation of logic is flawed or
incorrect. I believe
that I made a very objective dispassionate argument in my previous
e-mail. I did not
attack you but spoke in direct terms as to why I am convinced that not
only are you
wrong in all of this but that others will agree with my logic and not
yours. It is you who
came out attacking me this time Dean! The shoe is on the other foot!
A child who has a slight misconception is corrected by his or her
teachers in a
kindly manner. They are not described as being deluded, not in their
right mind, or playing
out actions that mirror their delusional state. You are apparently
cracking under the pressure
of my earnestly felt desire to illuminate the truth as I see it. Your
use of terms describing
me are very enlightening. The words you use are not from one who is
supremely confident
in their own viewpoint, otherwise you would not use them. I think we
have a case of the
pot calling the kettle black!
Again, Dean, and on a different matter, I must state my
astonishment at your
reasoning. You still have this concept that the Newtonian model of
gravity would cause
or not allow a hollow area to exist inside of a planet. I don't recall
your stating what
or where it was that you became convinced of such an idea. Was it
something that was
done by computer analysis? Was it just the logic of someone you admire?
You would
agree at least that every person thinks that he is logical and wise in
his own eyes. If you
agree, I cannot understand your penchant for trusting the source of this
belief as a final
authority. You seem well disposed to debunking my logic. What makes
someone else
right and me wrong? I still maintain that you will fail to point out any
fault in the logic
and examples I have submitted.
For the future, I would hope that you defer from stating publicly
your opinion
of my mental state or logic. The law of reciprocity indicates that the
more such behavior
flourishes the more a lowering of standards all around would result. You
rebuke me
for my behavior only to be indicted as one who is equally as bad if not
worse. Think
about that while you consider your response.
Scott