Slightly off topic, but fascinating!!

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
21

Joe,

In Cater's book, Chapters 3 - 6, Cater speaks about gravity effects within a hollow planet scheme, then in chapters 8 and 9 he goes into the mechanics of gravity as an electromagnetic force.

We can talk more about Cater. How do you feel about him? Are you a dyed-in-the-wool Caterite?

Dean

···

From: Joe Fit
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral

DeanCould we deduce then these gravity inducing radiations may reflect the disturbance of the cosmic matter surrounding the crust formation of any planet?These radiations may have some caracteristics special to the generated matter .And may I dare to say they are generated anywhere in the vicinity of each planets but °out° of the space matter and not from the planet itself.Being used properly these radiations could lead to a state of no gravity at all but different from the one astronauts are experimenting.I didnt read Cater on this subject and would be curious to know what he said exactly.Joe

--- On Mon, 12/3/12, silopanna <[email protected]> wrote:

From: silopanna <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, December 3, 2012, 12:03 AM

Kathy,

Joseph H. Cater contends that the Sun does not hold the planets within its gravitational pull, not to any great extent, in spite of its mass. This is one implication of the concept of gravity as an effect of electromagnetic forces. In this case, it would not be the mere mass that causes gravitational effects, but the frequency of radiation emitted by a given mass, such as the surface strata of a planet. Cater tells that the frequency that induces gravity effects is not so characteristic of the radiations that the Sun emits, i.e., that the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range.

I would dare to say that the fact that the solar system is not heliocentric is incompatible with Newtonian gravity, i.e., gravity related to the density of mass.

Dean

From: Kathy

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:14 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral

At one time in history it was thought that the Earth was the center of

the universe, but science eventually figured out Earth traveled around

the Sun, and science eventually found more planets.

Now, with science and mathematics, we now know we don't exactly circle

or travel around the Sun.

Here is one good video which shows how the Earth's "orbit" changes, it's

called orbit orbit eccentricity, which they think is caused by the

gravitational pull of other planets.

However, it's this following video I really wanted to share, it has

really good graphics in it, look particularly and the representation

starting at 3:58, of how we spiral through space.

You can easily Google to find other videos showing this same spiral.

I wasn't taught this way back in my early schooling, I was taught we

"circled" around the sun. That isn't true. We travel through space

in a spiral, never returning to the point of origination in 365 days.

Science is in it's infancy in defining "space", and also "gravity".

It's really hard for me with my pee brain to comprehend the gravity of

this galaxy and how our Solar System is moving around it, yet, it's

there. When you look at how our planets, each with it's own orbital

plane covering thousands of years, I do wonder as to what "force" is

moving our planets, with the Sun, through space. If you look at the

Spiral pattern, and consider how distance some of the large planets

including Jupiter and Saturn are from the Sun, you might think the Sun

should be "pulling" our planets behind it, rather in the elliptical

orbits perpendicular to the Sun.

Just all very interesting, and in these mysteries, is the aspect of how

our planets were formed and became hollow.

Kathy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

22

Good example Bob - have been reading up on the controversy. It seems that mainstream science is _not_ dedicated to factual truth but rather to protecting the careers of established professors. As a result it doesn't honestly reappraise the data and will even try to suppress or distort the facts.

Below are URLs of a great critique of the Big Bang and associated theories. In summary: it all rests on the Hubble interpretation of "redshift" as being entirely due to distance and speed (away from us), leading to a presumption that the Universe must be expanding and that, going back in time, it has only expanded for 15 bllion years (apparent radius of visible universe). so there must have been a "start point" 15 bn yrs ago.

But evidence has been accumulating that many galaxies' redshifts (particularly of quasars) are _not_ due to distance and speed away from us but rather to energetic processes going on in those galaxies (esp. in the cores maybe).

So the (probable) true situation is that there's no expansion. and that what we see is merely the visible universe full of galaxies going through their generations. So there's no constraint on the age of the universe (in fact not much of a clue as to its real age), so no known beginning or Big Bang (and no `heat death' end-of-the-universe either).

As those galaxies evolve from accumulations of dust + gas into ellipticals, then develop spin (due to conservation of angular momentum) to become spirals, then, when really massive and spinning very fast their swollen cores will `jet' away much of their matter as plasma - ideal building material for new galaxies.

Which all sounds like a `Steady State' or `Eternalist' universe to me.
Ray

Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2.wmv

Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 2 of 2.wmv


UNIVERSE The Cosmology Quest (complete)

rohiller wrote:

···

To flip this around, just have a look at the big bang theory which is widely believed. It claims that the entire Universe came into existence due to an exploding black hole in the distant past, but has nothing to say about how this hypothetical black hole was formed or what triggered it to explode. When you dig into it, this is an enormously extraordinary claim, yet it is accepted with no hesitation by almost everyone in the mainstream.

So, yes, there is a big double standard at work here. IMO.

/Bob

23

I think this may help people understand 'laws of the universe'.

Dr. Michio Kaku is excellent when it comes to explaining laws of physics
to us in terms most can understand.
There are many other videos by him as well.. a very interesting man to
listen to.

Kathy

···

On 12/6/2012 6:40 AM, rohiller wrote:

I am with Ray on this one and felt pretty much the same when I read
the "extraordinary evidence" phrase. Nothing personal against you,
Dean. That phrase is used all the time by so-called skeptics to stifle
debate and dismiss anomalous, repeatable scientific evidence that does
not fit with the dominant paradigm.

To flip this around, just have a look at the big bang theory which is
widely believed. It claims that the entire Universe came into
existence due to an exploding black hole in the distant past, but has
nothing to say about how this hypothetical black hole was formed or
what triggered it to explode. When you dig into it, this is an
enormously extraordinary claim, yet it is accepted with no hesitation
by almost everyone in the mainstream.

So, yes, there is a big double standard at work here. IMO.

/Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

24

Right - seem a few of his presentations, he's not afraid to step over to the wild side occasionally, if only to illustrate things. That presentaion is a bit dated though (String Theory is just about given up on these days): and see Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia

BTW - here's a _really_ wild theory to explain the apparent expansion of the universe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9337990/Not-enough-hours-in-the-day-Scientists-predict-time-will-stop-completely.html
OR
http://tinyurl.com/d7goabt

"The theory of time running out was devised by researchers from two Spanish universities trying to explain why the universe appeared to be spreading continuously and accelerating."

···

---

Kathy wrote:

I think this may help people understand 'laws of the universe'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbBjNiw4tk

Dr. Michio Kaku is excellent when it comes to explaining laws of physics to us in terms most can understand. There are many other videos by him as well.. a very interesting man to listen to.

25

Thanks for those links, Ray. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, (this is more than slightly off topic), have a look at the ides of Tom Campbell and his book, "My Big TOE". According to him (and I am convinced he is much more right than wrong), we live in a virtual, computed, probabilistic reality that has evolved and obeys certain rules (the laws of physics, known and yet to be discovered).

Here is an hour long intro: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/23968615/Tom%20Campbell%20on%20CMN.tv%20.mp4

Much more at www.youtube.com/twcjr44

best,
Bob

···

--- In [email protected], "Ray D" <ray.dickenson@...> wrote:

Good example Bob - have been reading up on the controversy. It
seems that mainstream science is _not_ dedicated to factual truth
but rather to protecting the careers of established professors.
As a result it doesn't honestly reappraise the data and will even
try to suppress or distort the facts.

Below are URLs of a great critique of the Big Bang and associated
theories. In summary: it all rests on the Hubble interpretation
of "redshift" as being entirely due to distance and speed (away
from us), leading to a presumption that the Universe must be
expanding and that, going back in time, it has only expanded for
15 bllion years (apparent radius of visible universe). so there
must have been a "start point" 15 bn yrs ago.

But evidence has been accumulating that many galaxies' redshifts
(particularly of quasars) are _not_ due to distance and speed
away from us but rather to energetic processes going on in those
galaxies (esp. in the cores maybe).

So the (probable) true situation is that there's no expansion.
and that what we see is merely the visible universe full of
galaxies going through their generations. So there's no
constraint on the age of the universe (in fact not much of a clue
as to its real age), so no known beginning or Big Bang (and no
`heat death' end-of-the-universe either).

As those galaxies evolve from accumulations of dust + gas into
ellipticals, then develop spin (due to conservation of angular
momentum) to become spirals, then, when really massive and
spinning very fast their swollen cores will `jet' away much of
their matter as plasma - ideal building material for new
galaxies.

Which all sounds like a `Steady State' or `Eternalist' universe
to me.
Ray

Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM
Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 2 of 2.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_EWnXCu2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfE7doPzm5I
UNIVERSE The Cosmology Quest (complete)

rohiller wrote:
> To flip this around, just have a look at the big bang theory
> which is widely believed. It claims that the entire Universe
> came into existence due to an exploding black hole in the
> distant past, but has nothing to say about how this
> hypothetical black hole was formed or what triggered it to
> explode. When you dig into it, this is an enormously
> extraordinary claim, yet it is accepted with no hesitation by
> almost everyone in the mainstream.
>
> So, yes, there is a big double standard at work here. IMO.
>
> /Bob

26

DeanIn fact lets say I am a Caterite when he is agreeing with me.It looks presomptuous I know but I have my own opinion.I read years ago his awsome life force (awsome book) but not probably with the correct attention at that time.Are you refering to that book?What drew my attention in a previous post was when you said ° emitted by a given mass° and ° the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range. °.I dont remember Cater saying that (I missed it for sure) and that means the Sun isnt holding or attracting anything.Period.Now as far as a given mass emitting radiations I will see things in the inverse order.Its because these radiations are created out of space matter or are part of it that a given matter is formed.Otherwise no matter ever would exist.Was Cater saying the same thing?In a given matter world these radiations are everywhere.Of course they are part of it.I would dare to say also that what we are calling gravity exists
before the matter.Was Cater saying that too?Mr Kaku is a very nice guy.But I prefer the old good ethers rather than these wormholes (with no hole at all) dark energy and dark matter.What do you think?Joe

···

--- On Fri, 12/7/12, silopanna <[email protected]> wrote:

From: silopanna <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
To: [email protected]
Date: Friday, December 7, 2012, 12:50 PM

      Joe,

In Cater's book, Chapters 3 - 6, Cater speaks about gravity effects within a hollow planet scheme, then in chapters 8 and 9 he goes into the mechanics of gravity as an electromagnetic force.

We can talk more about Cater. How do you feel about him? Are you a dyed-in-the-wool Caterite?

Dean

From: Joe Fit

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:39 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral

DeanCould we deduce then these gravity inducing radiations may reflect the disturbance of the cosmic matter surrounding the crust formation of any planet?These radiations may have some caracteristics special to the generated matter .And may I dare to say they are generated anywhere in the vicinity of each planets but °out° of the space matter and not from the planet itself.Being used properly these radiations could lead to a state of no gravity at all but different from the one astronauts are experimenting.I didnt read Cater on this subject and would be curious to know what he said exactly.Joe

--- On Mon, 12/3/12, silopanna <[email protected]> wrote:

From: silopanna <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral

To: [email protected]

Date: Monday, December 3, 2012, 12:03 AM

Kathy,

Joseph H. Cater contends that the Sun does not hold the planets within its gravitational pull, not to any great extent, in spite of its mass. This is one implication of the concept of gravity as an effect of electromagnetic forces. In this case, it would not be the mere mass that causes gravitational effects, but the frequency of radiation emitted by a given mass, such as the surface strata of a planet. Cater tells that the frequency that induces gravity effects is not so characteristic of the radiations that the Sun emits, i.e., that the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range.

I would dare to say that the fact that the solar system is not heliocentric is incompatible with Newtonian gravity, i.e., gravity related to the density of mass.

Dean

From: Kathy

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:14 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral

At one time in history it was thought that the Earth was the center of

the universe, but science eventually figured out Earth traveled around

the Sun, and science eventually found more planets.

Now, with science and mathematics, we now know we don't exactly circle

or travel around the Sun.

Here is one good video which shows how the Earth's "orbit" changes, it's

called orbit orbit eccentricity, which they think is caused by the

gravitational pull of other planets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI

However, it's this following video I really wanted to share, it has

really good graphics in it, look particularly and the representation

starting at 3:58, of how we spiral through space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6jBK1ZV-qs

You can easily Google to find other videos showing this same spiral.

I wasn't taught this way back in my early schooling, I was taught we

"circled" around the sun. That isn't true. We travel through space

in a spiral, never returning to the point of origination in 365 days.

Science is in it's infancy in defining "space", and also "gravity".

It's really hard for me with my pee brain to comprehend the gravity of

this galaxy and how our Solar System is moving around it, yet, it's

there. When you look at how our planets, each with it's own orbital

plane covering thousands of years, I do wonder as to what "force" is

moving our planets, with the Sun, through space. If you look at the

Spiral pattern, and consider how distance some of the large planets

including Jupiter and Saturn are from the Sun, you might think the Sun

should be "pulling" our planets behind it, rather in the elliptical

orbits perpendicular to the Sun.

Just all very interesting, and in these mysteries, is the aspect of how

our planets were formed and became hollow.

Kathy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

27

DeanIn fact lets say I am a Caterite when he is agreeing with me.It looks presomptuous I know but I have my own opinion.I read years ago his awsome life force (awsome book) but not probably with the correct attention at that time.Are you refering to that book?

*Joe,

*Yes, I am referring to The Awesome Life Force.

What drew my attention in a previous post was when you said ° emitted by a given mass° and ° the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range. °.I dont remember Cater saying that (I missed it for sure) and that means the Sun isnt holding or attracting anything.Period.

* Yes, you certainly missed that comment. And no, the implication is that the Sun isn't attracting "so" much. The Sun does emit some of those waves in the frequency that causes gravity effects.

*As far as your comments below are concerned, Mr. Cater theorized, and offered an experiment or two to help prove his theory, that the frequency of radiations undergo reductions when they pass through a medium. Thus, the radiations from the Sun that pass through the Earth's crust, meet with opposing energies, and come down to the gravity-inducing frequency range. But when these radiations are first emitted from the Sun, they are not in that range.

* Good night,

* Dean

Now as far as a given mass emitting radiations I will see things in the inverse order.Its because these radiations are created out of space matter or are part of it that a given matter is formed.Otherwise no matter ever would exist.Was Cater saying the same thing?In a given matter world these radiations are everywhere.Of course they are part of it.I would dare to say also that what we are calling gravity exists

···

--- In [email protected], Joe Fit <sishmoke@...> wrote:

before the matter.Was Cater saying that too?Mr Kaku is a very nice guy.But I prefer the old good ethers rather than these wormholes (with no hole at all) dark energy and dark matter.What do you think?Joe

--- On Fri, 12/7/12, silopanna <silopanna@...> wrote:

From: silopanna <silopanna@...>
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
To: [email protected]
Date: Friday, December 7, 2012, 12:50 PM

Â

      Joe,

In Cater's book, Chapters 3 - 6, Cater speaks about gravity effects within a hollow planet scheme, then in chapters 8 and 9 he goes into the mechanics of gravity as an electromagnetic force.

We can talk more about Cater. How do you feel about him? Are you a dyed-in-the-wool Caterite?

Dean

From: Joe Fit

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:39 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral

DeanCould we deduce then these gravity inducing radiations may reflect the disturbance of the cosmic matter surrounding the crust formation of any planet?These radiations may have some caracteristics special to the generated matter .And may I dare to say they are generated anywhere in the vicinity of each planets but °out° of the space matter and not from the planet itself.Being used properly these radiations could lead to a state of no gravity at all but different from the one astronauts are experimenting.I didnt read Cater on this subject and would be curious to know what he said exactly.Joe

--- On Mon, 12/3/12, silopanna <silopanna@...> wrote:

From: silopanna <silopanna@...>

Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral

To: [email protected]

Date: Monday, December 3, 2012, 12:03 AM

Kathy,

Joseph H. Cater contends that the Sun does not hold the planets within its gravitational pull, not to any great extent, in spite of its mass. This is one implication of the concept of gravity as an effect of electromagnetic forces. In this case, it would not be the mere mass that causes gravitational effects, but the frequency of radiation emitted by a given mass, such as the surface strata of a planet. Cater tells that the frequency that induces gravity effects is not so characteristic of the radiations that the Sun emits, i.e., that the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range.

I would dare to say that the fact that the solar system is not heliocentric is incompatible with Newtonian gravity, i.e., gravity related to the density of mass.

Dean

From: Kathy

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:14 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral

At one time in history it was thought that the Earth was the center of

the universe, but science eventually figured out Earth traveled around

the Sun, and science eventually found more planets.

Now, with science and mathematics, we now know we don't exactly circle

or travel around the Sun.

Here is one good video which shows how the Earth's "orbit" changes, it's

called orbit orbit eccentricity, which they think is caused by the

gravitational pull of other planets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI

However, it's this following video I really wanted to share, it has

really good graphics in it, look particularly and the representation

starting at 3:58, of how we spiral through space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6jBK1ZV-qs

You can easily Google to find other videos showing this same spiral.

I wasn't taught this way back in my early schooling, I was taught we

"circled" around the sun. That isn't true. We travel through space

in a spiral, never returning to the point of origination in 365 days.

Science is in it's infancy in defining "space", and also "gravity".

It's really hard for me with my pee brain to comprehend the gravity of

this galaxy and how our Solar System is moving around it, yet, it's

there. When you look at how our planets, each with it's own orbital

plane covering thousands of years, I do wonder as to what "force" is

moving our planets, with the Sun, through space. If you look at the

Spiral pattern, and consider how distance some of the large planets

including Jupiter and Saturn are from the Sun, you might think the Sun

should be "pulling" our planets behind it, rather in the elliptical

orbits perpendicular to the Sun.

Just all very interesting, and in these mysteries, is the aspect of how

our planets were formed and became hollow.

Kathy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

28

Zenalpha,

Your quote is directly from Cater's book, the Awesome Life Force." Are you attributing this quote to Andromedans?

Yours,

Dean

Well, that agrees with what the andromedans are saying. that the sun causes gravity:

"Our sun produces a highly penetrating radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum. This frequency is approximately a trillion cycles a second. This frequency is located between the lower portion of the infrared and radar band. It is this radiation from the sun that causes gravity, not the planets rotation. I will explain more of this when we address the hollow Earth. The Andromedan science claims that any planetary body that is 29.3 miles in size and is exposed to a sun, is capable of a gravity field. Even if it is not rotating on its axis. "

···

--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <silopanna@...> wrote:

--- In [email protected], Joe Fit <sishmoke@> wrote:
>
> DeanIn fact lets say I am a Caterite when he is agreeing with me.It looks presomptuous I know but I have my own opinion.I read years ago his awsome life force (awsome book) but not probably with the correct attention at that time.Are you refering to that book?

*Joe,

*Yes, I am referring to The Awesome Life Force.

What drew my attention in a previous post was when you said ° emitted by a given mass° and ° the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range. °.I dont remember Cater saying that (I missed it for sure) and that means the Sun isnt holding or attracting anything.Period.

* Yes, you certainly missed that comment. And no, the implication is that the Sun isn't attracting "so" much. The Sun does emit some of those waves in the frequency that causes gravity effects.

*As far as your comments below are concerned, Mr. Cater theorized, and offered an experiment or two to help prove his theory, that the frequency of radiations undergo reductions when they pass through a medium. Thus, the radiations from the Sun that pass through the Earth's crust, meet with opposing energies, and come down to the gravity-inducing frequency range. But when these radiations are first emitted from the Sun, they are not in that range.

* Good night,

* Dean

Now as far as a given mass emitting radiations I will see things in the inverse order.Its because these radiations are created out of space matter or are part of it that a given matter is formed.Otherwise no matter ever would exist.Was Cater saying the same thing?In a given matter world these radiations are everywhere.Of course they are part of it.I would dare to say also that what we are calling gravity exists
> before the matter.Was Cater saying that too?Mr Kaku is a very nice guy.But I prefer the old good ethers rather than these wormholes (with no hole at all) dark energy and dark matter.What do you think?Joe
>
> --- On Fri, 12/7/12, silopanna <silopanna@> wrote:
>
> From: silopanna <silopanna@>
> Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Friday, December 7, 2012, 12:50 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe,
>
>
>
> In Cater's book, Chapters 3 - 6, Cater speaks about gravity effects within a hollow planet scheme, then in chapters 8 and 9 he goes into the mechanics of gravity as an electromagnetic force.
>
>
>
> We can talk more about Cater. How do you feel about him? Are you a dyed-in-the-wool Caterite?
>
>
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> From: Joe Fit
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:39 PM
>
> To: [email protected]
>
> Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
>
>
>
> DeanCould we deduce then these gravity inducing radiations may reflect the disturbance of the cosmic matter surrounding the crust formation of any planet?These radiations may have some caracteristics special to the generated matter .And may I dare to say they are generated anywhere in the vicinity of each planets but °out° of the space matter and not from the planet itself.Being used properly these radiations could lead to a state of no gravity at all but different from the one astronauts are experimenting.I didnt read Cater on this subject and would be curious to know what he said exactly.Joe
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/3/12, silopanna <silopanna@> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: silopanna <silopanna@>
>
> Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
>
> To: [email protected]
>
> Date: Monday, December 3, 2012, 12:03 AM
>
>
>
> Kathy,
>
>
>
> Joseph H. Cater contends that the Sun does not hold the planets within its gravitational pull, not to any great extent, in spite of its mass. This is one implication of the concept of gravity as an effect of electromagnetic forces. In this case, it would not be the mere mass that causes gravitational effects, but the frequency of radiation emitted by a given mass, such as the surface strata of a planet. Cater tells that the frequency that induces gravity effects is not so characteristic of the radiations that the Sun emits, i.e., that the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range.
>
>
>
> I would dare to say that the fact that the solar system is not heliocentric is incompatible with Newtonian gravity, i.e., gravity related to the density of mass.
>
>
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> From: Kathy
>
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:14 PM
>
>
>
> To: [email protected]
>
>
>
> Subject: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
>
>
>
> At one time in history it was thought that the Earth was the center of
>
>
>
> the universe, but science eventually figured out Earth traveled around
>
>
>
> the Sun, and science eventually found more planets.
>
>
>
> Now, with science and mathematics, we now know we don't exactly circle
>
>
>
> or travel around the Sun.
>
>
>
> Here is one good video which shows how the Earth's "orbit" changes, it's
>
>
>
> called orbit orbit eccentricity, which they think is caused by the
>
>
>
> gravitational pull of other planets.
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI
>
>
>
> However, it's this following video I really wanted to share, it has
>
>
>
> really good graphics in it, look particularly and the representation
>
>
>
> starting at 3:58, of how we spiral through space.
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6jBK1ZV-qs
>
>
>
> You can easily Google to find other videos showing this same spiral.
>
>
>
> I wasn't taught this way back in my early schooling, I was taught we
>
>
>
> "circled" around the sun. That isn't true. We travel through space
>
>
>
> in a spiral, never returning to the point of origination in 365 days.
>
>
>
> Science is in it's infancy in defining "space", and also "gravity".
>
>
>
> It's really hard for me with my pee brain to comprehend the gravity of
>
>
>
> this galaxy and how our Solar System is moving around it, yet, it's
>
>
>
> there. When you look at how our planets, each with it's own orbital
>
>
>
> plane covering thousands of years, I do wonder as to what "force" is
>
>
>
> moving our planets, with the Sun, through space. If you look at the
>
>
>
> Spiral pattern, and consider how distance some of the large planets
>
>
>
> including Jupiter and Saturn are from the Sun, you might think the Sun
>
>
>
> should be "pulling" our planets behind it, rather in the elliptical
>
>
>
> orbits perpendicular to the Sun.
>
>
>
> Just all very interesting, and in these mysteries, is the aspect of how
>
>
>
> our planets were formed and became hollow.
>
>
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

29

I guess so.. found it off the web though.

···

--- In [email protected], "zenalpha" <zenalpha@...> wrote:

Zenalpha,

Your quote is directly from Cater's book, the Awesome Life Force." Are you attributing this quote to Andromedans?

Yours,

Dean

Well, that agrees with what the andromedans are saying. that the sun causes gravity:

"Our sun produces a highly penetrating radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum. This frequency is approximately a trillion cycles a second. This frequency is located between the lower portion of the infrared and radar band. It is this radiation from the sun that causes gravity, not the planets rotation. I will explain more of this when we address the hollow Earth. The Andromedan science claims that any planetary body that is 29.3 miles in size and is exposed to a sun, is capable of a gravity field. Even if it is not rotating on its axis. "

--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <silopanna@> wrote:
>
>
> --- In [email protected], Joe Fit <sishmoke@> wrote:
> >
> > DeanIn fact lets say I am a Caterite when he is agreeing with me.It looks presomptuous I know but I have my own opinion.I read years ago his awsome life force (awsome book) but not probably with the correct attention at that time.Are you refering to that book?
>
> *Joe,
>
> *Yes, I am referring to The Awesome Life Force.
>
> What drew my attention in a previous post was when you said ° emitted by a given mass° and ° the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range. °.I dont remember Cater saying that (I missed it for sure) and that means the Sun isnt holding or attracting anything.Period.
>
> * Yes, you certainly missed that comment. And no, the implication is that the Sun isn't attracting "so" much. The Sun does emit some of those waves in the frequency that causes gravity effects.
>
> *As far as your comments below are concerned, Mr. Cater theorized, and offered an experiment or two to help prove his theory, that the frequency of radiations undergo reductions when they pass through a medium. Thus, the radiations from the Sun that pass through the Earth's crust, meet with opposing energies, and come down to the gravity-inducing frequency range. But when these radiations are first emitted from the Sun, they are not in that range.
>
> * Good night,
>
> * Dean
>
> Now as far as a given mass emitting radiations I will see things in the inverse order.Its because these radiations are created out of space matter or are part of it that a given matter is formed.Otherwise no matter ever would exist.Was Cater saying the same thing?In a given matter world these radiations are everywhere.Of course they are part of it.I would dare to say also that what we are calling gravity exists
> > before the matter.Was Cater saying that too?Mr Kaku is a very nice guy.But I prefer the old good ethers rather than these wormholes (with no hole at all) dark energy and dark matter.What do you think?Joe
> >
> > --- On Fri, 12/7/12, silopanna <silopanna@> wrote:
> >
> > From: silopanna <silopanna@>
> > Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
> > To: [email protected]
> > Date: Friday, December 7, 2012, 12:50 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> >
> >
> > In Cater's book, Chapters 3 - 6, Cater speaks about gravity effects within a hollow planet scheme, then in chapters 8 and 9 he goes into the mechanics of gravity as an electromagnetic force.
> >
> >
> >
> > We can talk more about Cater. How do you feel about him? Are you a dyed-in-the-wool Caterite?
> >
> >
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Joe Fit
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:39 PM
> >
> > To: [email protected]
> >
> > Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
> >
> >
> >
> > DeanCould we deduce then these gravity inducing radiations may reflect the disturbance of the cosmic matter surrounding the crust formation of any planet?These radiations may have some caracteristics special to the generated matter .And may I dare to say they are generated anywhere in the vicinity of each planets but °out° of the space matter and not from the planet itself.Being used properly these radiations could lead to a state of no gravity at all but different from the one astronauts are experimenting.I didnt read Cater on this subject and would be curious to know what he said exactly.Joe
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 12/3/12, silopanna <silopanna@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: silopanna <silopanna@>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
> >
> > To: [email protected]
> >
> > Date: Monday, December 3, 2012, 12:03 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Kathy,
> >
> >
> >
> > Joseph H. Cater contends that the Sun does not hold the planets within its gravitational pull, not to any great extent, in spite of its mass. This is one implication of the concept of gravity as an effect of electromagnetic forces. In this case, it would not be the mere mass that causes gravitational effects, but the frequency of radiation emitted by a given mass, such as the surface strata of a planet. Cater tells that the frequency that induces gravity effects is not so characteristic of the radiations that the Sun emits, i.e., that the Sun doesn't emit much radiation in the gravity-inducing range.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would dare to say that the fact that the solar system is not heliocentric is incompatible with Newtonian gravity, i.e., gravity related to the density of mass.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Kathy
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:14 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > To: [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject: [allplanets-hollow] More about planets, orbit eccentricity, traveling in a spiral
> >
> >
> >
> > At one time in history it was thought that the Earth was the center of
> >
> >
> >
> > the universe, but science eventually figured out Earth traveled around
> >
> >
> >
> > the Sun, and science eventually found more planets.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, with science and mathematics, we now know we don't exactly circle
> >
> >
> >
> > or travel around the Sun.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is one good video which shows how the Earth's "orbit" changes, it's
> >
> >
> >
> > called orbit orbit eccentricity, which they think is caused by the
> >
> >
> >
> > gravitational pull of other planets.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI
> >
> >
> >
> > However, it's this following video I really wanted to share, it has
> >
> >
> >
> > really good graphics in it, look particularly and the representation
> >
> >
> >
> > starting at 3:58, of how we spiral through space.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6jBK1ZV-qs
> >
> >
> >
> > You can easily Google to find other videos showing this same spiral.
> >
> >
> >
> > I wasn't taught this way back in my early schooling, I was taught we
> >
> >
> >
> > "circled" around the sun. That isn't true. We travel through space
> >
> >
> >
> > in a spiral, never returning to the point of origination in 365 days.
> >
> >
> >
> > Science is in it's infancy in defining "space", and also "gravity".
> >
> >
> >
> > It's really hard for me with my pee brain to comprehend the gravity of
> >
> >
> >
> > this galaxy and how our Solar System is moving around it, yet, it's
> >
> >
> >
> > there. When you look at how our planets, each with it's own orbital
> >
> >
> >
> > plane covering thousands of years, I do wonder as to what "force" is
> >
> >
> >
> > moving our planets, with the Sun, through space. If you look at the
> >
> >
> >
> > Spiral pattern, and consider how distance some of the large planets
> >
> >
> >
> > including Jupiter and Saturn are from the Sun, you might think the Sun
> >
> >
> >
> > should be "pulling" our planets behind it, rather in the elliptical
> >
> >
> >
> > orbits perpendicular to the Sun.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just all very interesting, and in these mysteries, is the aspect of how
> >
> >
> >
> > our planets were formed and became hollow.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kathy
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

30

Thanks Bob - that Calgary video is masterly

His physics is detailed and, far as I can tell is all correct and his conclusion - e.g. that the `Big Bang' is a "belief" not a verifiable scientific theory - is true, as it's not `falsifiable'. His further conclusions also seem reasonable, being based on findings from Relativity and Quantum experiments. And it all leaves us in a somewhat scary yet maybe more hopeful position.
Ray

rohiller wrote:

Thanks for those links, Ray. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, (this is more than slightly off topic), have a look at the ides of Tom Campbell and his book, "My Big TOE". According to him (and I am convinced he is much more right than wrong), we live in a virtual, computed, probabilistic reality that has evolved and obeys certain

rules (the laws of physics, known and yet to be discovered).

···

Here is an hour long intro:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/23968615/Tom%20Campbell%20on%20CMN.tv%20.mp4
Much more at www.youtube.com/twcjr44

best,
Bob

--- In [email protected], "Ray D" <ray.dickenson@...>
wrote:

Good example Bob - have been reading up on the controversy. It
seems that mainstream science is _not_ dedicated to factual truth
but rather to protecting the careers of established professors.
As a result it doesn't honestly reappraise the data and will even
try to suppress or distort the facts.

Below are URLs of a great critique of the Big Bang and associated
theories. In summary: it all rests on the Hubble interpretation
of "redshift" as being entirely due to distance and speed (away
from us), leading to a presumption that the Universe must be
expanding and that, going back in time, it has only expanded for
15 bllion years (apparent radius of visible universe). so there
must have been a "start point" 15 bn yrs ago.

But evidence has been accumulating that many galaxies' redshifts
(particularly of quasars) are _not_ due to distance and speed
away from us but rather to energetic processes going on in those
galaxies (esp. in the cores maybe).

So the (probable) true situation is that there's no expansion.
and that what we see is merely the visible universe full of
galaxies going through their generations. So there's no
constraint on the age of the universe (in fact not much of a clue
as to its real age), so no known beginning or Big Bang (and no
`heat death' end-of-the-universe either).

As those galaxies evolve from accumulations of dust + gas into
ellipticals, then develop spin (due to conservation of angular
momentum) to become spirals, then, when really massive and
spinning very fast their swollen cores will `jet' away much of
their matter as plasma - ideal building material for new
galaxies.

Which all sounds like a `Steady State' or `Eternalist' universe
to me.
Ray

Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM
Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 2 of 2.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_EWnXCu2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfE7doPzm5I
UNIVERSE The Cosmology Quest (complete)

rohiller wrote:

To flip this around, just have a look at the big bang theory
which is widely believed. It claims that the entire Universe
came into existence due to an exploding black hole in the
distant past, but has nothing to say about how this
hypothetical black hole was formed or what triggered it to
explode. When you dig into it, this is an enormously
extraordinary claim, yet it is accepted with no hesitation by
almost everyone in the mainstream.

So, yes, there is a big double standard at work here. IMO.

/Bob

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

http://www.holloworbs.com/Yahoo! Groups Links

31

Hi, Ray-

You are most welcome. As you dig in to Tom's message, I think you will find it is not scary at all. It is reassuring and empowering, because you will, probably for the first time in your life, understand the playing field and the rules of the game we are all playing. Then you can truly make informed free-will choices.

best,
Bob

···

--- In [email protected], "Ray D" <ray.dickenson@...> wrote:

Thanks Bob - that Calgary video is masterly
http://www.youtube.com/twcjr44

His physics is detailed and, far as I can tell is all correct and
his conclusion - e.g. that the `Big Bang' is a "belief" not a
verifiable scientific theory - is true, as it's not
`falsifiable'. His further conclusions also seem reasonable,
being based on findings from Relativity and Quantum experiments.
And it all leaves us in a somewhat scary yet maybe more hopeful
position.
Ray

rohiller wrote:
> Thanks for those links, Ray. If you really want to go down the
> rabbit hole, (this is more than slightly off topic), have a
> look at the ides of Tom Campbell and his book, "My Big TOE".
> According to him (and I am convinced he is much more right than
> wrong), we live in a virtual, computed, probabilistic reality
> that has evolved and obeys certain
rules (the laws of physics, known and yet to be discovered).

> Here is an hour long intro:
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/23968615/Tom%20Campbell%20on%20CMN.tv%20.mp4
> Much more at www.youtube.com/twcjr44
>
> best,
> Bob
>
> --- In [email protected], "Ray D"
> <ray.dickenson@>
> wrote:
>>
>> Good example Bob - have been reading up on the controversy. It
>> seems that mainstream science is _not_ dedicated to factual
>> truth
>> but rather to protecting the careers of established
>> professors.
>> As a result it doesn't honestly reappraise the data and will
>> even
>> try to suppress or distort the facts.
>>
>> Below are URLs of a great critique of the Big Bang and
>> associated
>> theories. In summary: it all rests on the Hubble
>> interpretation
>> of "redshift" as being entirely due to distance and speed
>> (away
>> from us), leading to a presumption that the Universe must be
>> expanding and that, going back in time, it has only expanded
>> for
>> 15 bllion years (apparent radius of visible universe). so
>> there
>> must have been a "start point" 15 bn yrs ago.
>>
>> But evidence has been accumulating that many galaxies'
>> redshifts
>> (particularly of quasars) are _not_ due to distance and speed
>> away from us but rather to energetic processes going on in
>> those
>> galaxies (esp. in the cores maybe).
>>
>> So the (probable) true situation is that there's no expansion.
>> and that what we see is merely the visible universe full of
>> galaxies going through their generations. So there's no
>> constraint on the age of the universe (in fact not much of a
>> clue
>> as to its real age), so no known beginning or Big Bang (and no
>> `heat death' end-of-the-universe either).
>>
>> As those galaxies evolve from accumulations of dust + gas into
>> ellipticals, then develop spin (due to conservation of angular
>> momentum) to become spirals, then, when really massive and
>> spinning very fast their swollen cores will `jet' away much of
>> their matter as plasma - ideal building material for new
>> galaxies.
>>
>> Which all sounds like a `Steady State' or `Eternalist'
>> universe
>> to me.
>> Ray
>>
>>
>> Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2.wmv
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM
>> Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 2 of 2.wmv
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_EWnXCu2w
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfE7doPzm5I
>> UNIVERSE The Cosmology Quest (complete)
>>
>> rohiller wrote:
>>> To flip this around, just have a look at the big bang theory
>>> which is widely believed. It claims that the entire Universe
>>> came into existence due to an exploding black hole in the
>>> distant past, but has nothing to say about how this
>>> hypothetical black hole was formed or what triggered it to
>>> explode. When you dig into it, this is an enormously
>>> extraordinary claim, yet it is accepted with no hesitation by
>>> almost everyone in the mainstream.
>>>
>>> So, yes, there is a big double standard at work here. IMO.
>>>
>>> /Bob
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> http://www.holloworbs.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>