I have offered to send you my latest program version
and you have continued to not take me up on it. Why you
haven't is a total mystery to me. Would you explain why
this is the case? I made mention to a friend that to go over
just the "N" section of the latest program version would take
you less time than it does to read or compose one of the longer
e-mails Dean is in the recent habit of writing to Dick. I
just don't understand this! You are certainly not afraid to
learn things about the HET that you don't know, are you?
BTW Dean, your continuous insistence that Mr. Cater is
correct about the 50 mile gravity radiation penetration into
either inner or outer crusts of the shell has NOT been scientifically
proven. NO ONE HAS BEEN THAT FAR DOWN INTO
THE EARTH! There has been no way to do an on site examination
of the predictions Mr. Cater, yourself, me or anyone else might
have to make about the deeper Earth's interior. Some facts are
a result of extrapolation. This is fine when one cannot be there
personally to "observe" directly what is going on but it makes
any conclusions reached of a highly tenuous nature. The scientific
method is badly needed to temper both yours and Mr. Cater's
ideas.
Greg, Dennis, Mike, Frode, or anyone else on this list who
has a PC, sorry Dick (he has a MAC), please consider requesting
my program. I could care less if you think my ideas are poorly
conceived or that the ideas are ridiculous. I do care, but being
unable to share this freely with people of like interests for so long
is really trying my patience with this group. This is no trick! I have
no secret agenda. I am like the proverbial drug addict who needs
his fix. I have never taken an illicit drug in my life but the anxiety
I get when I have waited for so long for someone to pay me the
courtesy of looking at some of my ideas is almost akin to being
weaned of some very mild version of a drug habit. I want
FEEDBACK, and if I can't get it, belonging to this group holds
little interest for me. I don't plan to spend anymore time in argument
with people who have entrenched ideas about scientific theories
that are in no way proven by the scientific method. It would be
like having a formula for falling bodies at sea level.
[ 980.665 * 0.5 * seconds ^2 ]
and not being able to show through repeatable observation that
this formula is correct.
I have spent many evenings creating this program and it is
still not fully complete. I have the thought that it is an ongoing
project which will continue as long as I find that computer analysis
can provide some insight into the HET and related matters. I have
told Jan that I consider that I might even work on other peoples
ideas which require the utility of a computer programs number
crunching and graphics. This is precisely what went on in converting
Jan's seismic wave ideas into a tool which can examine the many
facets of his concept of inner Earth P and S wave motion.
I also wish to make it clear that I don't consider that I have
contributed more than some of the list members that have written
books or host web sites or both. Maybe they have done exceedingly
more than I. I would gladly place myself behind several others
who have been at this longer and have distinguished themselves by
writing books, having web sites and the like. I would list those I
speak of except in doing so, I might forget one or two and that
wouldn't be cricket. They know who they are.
Anyone interested in knowledge realizes that to become well
rounded a little effort is required to attain that next insight. It is my
fond wish that out of a group of very many people a few might take
interest in reviewing my program.
Thank You,
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!
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.
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?
Dick,
You would have to phrase it like this, that it is an: " electrostatic charge," or an " electrostatic attraction." It is just going to cause you trouble if you use the word " magnetic " when you refer to gravity, or electrostatic attraction ( same thing )
Use can use the word " attraction " all around, though.
Snip
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?
Dick,
Cater describes that the redistribution of frequency goes on from just below the surface to 50 miles down in full force, therafter diminishing. Not after the first 50 miles, but within the first 50 miles.
It is an electrostatic attraction by nature, not magnetic per se, no.
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?
Well, yes- the soft particles possess an electrostatic charge on them, and this charge is, in effect, gravity.
To say that the charge is " gravity inducing," or that a radiation is " gravity inducing " is good policy. In other circumstances, an electrostatic attraction isn´t called gravity. In fact, it isn´t thought of as gravity at all. Anyway, it´s a safe term, easy to defend. Just look at what happened when you used ther term magnetic to refer to gravity.
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.
Yes, gravity is deemed to be absolutely, in all places and times, associated with the density of mass. But if you identify the gravity itself as an electrostatic force, then it is possible to have mass with no charge on it, so to speak, mass which exhibits no inertia, no weight.
Earth's body is the SOURCE of Eath's "Force of Gravity,"
they appear to believe.
Yes, but it is a surface phenomenon, gravity is not uniformly penetrating nor does it penetrate completely.
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?
It originates within the upper crust of the shell. The gravity-inducing radiation is generated there by an interaction of the electrons in the matter of the Earth, the rain of ether, and the particles of the sun which have converted themselves into soft particles.
Where is the SOURCE of that FORCE?
Answered above.
Dick,
About the penetration of soft particles through solid matter- penetration by particles happens everyday. Radiation from radio transmitters pass through walls, right? When the frequency is different enough, the particles don´t interfere with each other. They get deflected at most, and then just slide by each other.
All matter is comprised of particles. Ethers are particles which bind together and form photons, photons form together into aggragates- these photon aggragates are actually the fundamental particles such as electrons and protons- the electrons and prtons form atoms, atoms molecules, molecules form cells, etc.
All matter consists of particles. Even ghostly bodies, which can also be called ethereal bodies, are composed of particles which vibrate at higher frequencies, such that they pass right through the matter of our realm. But you have to think in terms of particles, even when you speak of energies.
Later,
Dharma/Dean
PS- You´re not flunked, but I think that you are looking at summer school.
Below, Professor Dean comments on Dick's further comments (and flunked student Dick, of course, comments on Dean's comments) ....
Dick comments: Dean, I think you're needlessly substituting alternate words that do not paint a clearer picture of the reality we're discussing than words and phrases I have used. If this subject weren't so fundamentally important, I'd drop the right here. Won't do it! Look at the words above that you insist be used...
Doesn't the word "ELECTRO -" simply combine ANY following word with the "imponderable"* force ELECTRICITY? Your use of ELECTROstatic (having electric charges), my sometime use of ELECTROmagnetic (electric charge creating a magnet) etc. Aren't EITHER of the preceding conditions capable of producing similar EFFECTS in nature?
Winston defines ELECTRICTY as: "An *imponderable and invisible agency, capable under different circumstances of producing light, heat, chemical decomposition and other physical phenomena.".
Webster describes ELECTRICITY as: "A property of certain fundamental particles of all matter....; electric charge is generated by friction, induction or chemical change; An electric current.
Winston defines GRAVITY as: "(terrestrial gravitation); the force tending to draw bodies toward the approximate center of the earth."
Webster defines GRAVITY as: "the pull on all bodies in the earth's sphere toward the earth's center."
Notice the two above get more specific than just masses attracting masses. The SOURCE of the FORCE of Gravity is implied to be "something" in the center of the Earth. What something? A hypothesized metallic nickel-iron ball that functions as earth's MAGNET (what else?), pulling all metallic and NON-metallic matter towards itself.
Webster defines MAGNET as: "anything that attracts."
and MAGNETISM as: "powerfully attractive."
Winston defines MAGNET as: "a person or thing that attracts."
and MAGNETIC as: "having the properties of, or capable of being given the properties of, a magnet; pertaining to the earth's magnetism."
For simplicity we can describe any "charge" within matter as "electrical." Can we agree on that?
Of course we can, because the electrons, protons, etc. in atoms are agreed to be "electrical" in nature.
Every single particle of matter making up Earth's entire body, waters and atmosphere, is thus permeated with innumerable "charges," but in varying volume and kind.. Can we agree on that?
The KINDS of "charge" and the varying VOLUMES "charging" matter, produce different phenomena in nature. Can we agree on that?
According to Newton, a large mass of matter will ATTRACT smaller masses of matter. Or, with the dictionary definitions above, a large MAGNETIC metal mass in the center of the earth will ATTRACT every element within "earth's sphere," to itself. This is called THE FORCE OF GRAVITY. Earth's Gravity is conceived of as a MAGNETIC (in kind), pulling FORCE, no matter how scientists may "fudge" on their formal definitions of Gravity.
Scott seems right - and Dean seems right about "masses." Both seem to believe material masses are permeated with "CHARGES." Scott refers to the basic atomic structure of dense matter causing the gravitational attraction of one mass to another..One difference with Professor Dean of Cater U, is that Dean seems to believe that special "soft particles" must FIRST affect the matter BEFORE "gravity inducing radiations" can be produced.
But aren't both of you guys generally sharing the viewpoint that "charges" within the masses, in reality, is what draws the masses to each other?
In other words, it may be the "charges" permeating smaller masses, gravitating to the greater volume of similar "charges" permeating the larger mass (Earth), that brings the outward appearing masses together.
The "charges" in the smaller objects attempt to join with the greater volume of similar charges in the larger object. This they cannot do without upsetting the very atomic structure of the smaller objects. All the laws of nature will allow them to do is come CLOSE to or IN CONTACT with the larger object (in this case, our Earth's "magnet," in the crust or that ridiculous iron-nickel ball in Earth's center)
The preceding seems to be THE FORCE OF GRAVITY in action, attracting matter to matter.
If either or both of you guys can agree with the logic that it is fundamentally the "charges" within masses (whatever the nature of those "charges"), that draw the masses together, I will join you both in agreement! If you don't I will consider both of you irascible dumb bunnies and flunk you from D.U!
(Please note that I've temporarily put aside any REPELLING "charges" - or centrifugal "forces" - that play roles in holding the Sun's satellites in orbits, at distances from herself.) - Dick
-------------------------
Dick comments: I said it all above. Your above sentence does not reflect the reality we all perceive. ELECTRostatic or ELECTROmagnetic or not, the words "magnetic attraction by nature" as well as "electrostatic by nature," both seem to produce the action of matter "gravitating": to matter. - Dick
---------------------------
Dick comments: I don't disagree with the MEANING I think I've understood about your above sentence, but Cater's terms really don't seem to paint a reasonable picture of WHAT gravity is in action or HOW electric "charge" produces it.. - Dick
-------------------
Dick comments: Dean, I have only a glimmer of what you meant in the above paragraph. Don't understand. - Dick
------------------------
Dick: Earth's body is the SOURCE of Eath's "Force of Gravity,"
they appear to believe.
Dean: Yes, but it is a surface phenomenon, gravity is not uniformly penetrating nor does it penetrate completely
Dick comments: Do you literally mean a "surface" (on Earth) phenomenon? Don't comprehend. Agree, "gravity (in EFFECT) is not uniformly penetrating nor does it penetrate completely." Loose matter on the surface attempting to reach Earth's "magnet" deep in the crust, is prevented doing so by DENSITY, the density of the solid rock of Earth's upper crust..Water may pass down through cracks, but a falling stone is stopped, anchored against the surface. It can't "pass through" the rock layers to move further below without help from Voyager! That density below limits the power of Earth's force of Gravity on that stone.
In reality, it is actually the inability of the stone to gravitate further down beneath the surface to reach Earth's magnet. Simpistic examples, yes, but for the majority of human beings the condition of normal gravity on earth's surface, affecting the atmosphere and for many miles deep from the surface, consists of the preceding reality.
We diverge on this. Dean, you apparently conceive Gravity being caused solely by Cater's hypothetical universal "soft particles" from the Sun, changing "frequencies" (in Earth's atmosphere?) and especially in the crust, producing the phenomenon of Earth's Gravity. As if Earth would have no independent SOURCE of gravity of its own! That really makes no sense to me! - Dick
------------------------
Dick comments: Partly agree that Earth's force of Gravity originates somewhere in the upper crust of the shell. The rest of it I have doubts about. Playing with words like "interaction of the electrons" id no explanation. Electrons are in EVERYTHING. What does the "rain of ether" mean? No one has detected "ether." Its a hypothetical. "...and the particles of the sun which have converted themselves (how?) into soft particles." brings us right back to Cater's "soft particles" being solely responsible for any gravity. That's how it seems, Dean, from what you've written.. - Dick
---------------------------
Dick: Where is the SOURCE of that FORCE?
Dean: Answered above.
Dean: About the penetration of soft particles through solid matter- penetration by particles happens everyday. Radiation from radio transmitters pass through walls, right? When the frequency is different enough, the particles don´t interfere with each other. They get deflected at most, and then just slide by each other.
All matter is comprised of particles. Ethers are particles which bind together and form photons, photons form together into aggragates- these photon aggragates are actually the fundamental particles such as electrons and protons- the electrons and prtons form atoms, atoms molecules, molecules form cells, etc
All matter consists of particles. Even ghostly bodies, which can also be called ethereal bodies, are composed of particles which vibrate at higher frequencies, such that they pass right through the matter of our realm. But you have to think in terms of particles, even when you speak of energies.