I agree, but it's not as strong as the gravitational field of the Earth,
due
to the considerable size difference. This is one of the reasons that
low-orbiting Phobos doesn't crash into the planet. Also, Phobos is
generally believed to be hollow; if Mars is a hollow planet, then here
again
we see that its mass isn't anywhere near as great as that of an
Earth-sized
planet. Recent theories have stated that Mars has no heavy core, like the
Earth *supposedly* does (we know better, don't we?), though how planetary
scientists can reach such a conclusion without admitting that Mars is
hollow
is beyond me....
Of course, my statements above are based on the theory of gravity as it
generally stands, and not on Cater's or Rod's view of gravity....
--Mike
Mike and everyone,
Yes, Cater's understandings are different. It takes a while for the concepts
to set in. For example, he feels that since gravity is an electromagnetic
radiation which penetrates about 50 miles through a planet's surface, that
all planets have the same surface gravity- the rest of the matter comprising
the planet's interior is not strongly imbued with the gravity-inducing
charge, so the rest of the planet's matter doesn't exhibit any appreciable,
further weight. This leads him to conclude that the Moon and the Earth, for
example, exhibit roughly equal gravity.
The first time I read his explanation I could not even follow it. At the
next step I followed it but figured " Well, this part I don't know about."
But now I feel quite strongly about it. On any planet, wherever one were to
walk, the gravity-inducing charge exists about 50 miles below.
Of course, I don't want to be didactic. I am just giving an idea of how
Cater's views are different.
He feels that Mars is much larger than the Earth. He mentions satellite
mapping that was done by some probe on the surface of Mars which indicated
that the base of Mons Oylmpus is 375 miles wide. Given conventional
estimates of the width of the planet, that would make the base of Mons
Olympus about 9% of the total diameter, but it doesn't look that way on any
Mars map or Mars globe; it looks more like 3% of the diamter, which would
make the planet about 11,000 miles wide. He concluded this with NASA's own
figures.
Cater feels that the distances between planets is grossly overestimated, and
the diameters underestimated. This, he feels, is due to the refracting
effects of the cosmic rays, which are soft particles, also called orgone,
which permeate space. This is how he explains it on pages 234 and 235 of The
Ultimate Reality:
" Evidently, NASA has been unable to get its act together properly. In
addition to the above, some reports have indicated that the Martian polar
caps are a mixture of dry ice and frozen water, while others give the
impression that they are comprised only of common ice. Such inconsistencies
on the part of NASA could be attributed to the fact that NASA officials
consist of various kinds of liars. Apparently, few, if any, of them are
clever enough to be consummate liars. If it were not for the " double and
triple thinking " ability of academic scientists, the credibility of NASA
might be seriously questioned by more individuals.
Another factor that leads astronomers astray is the fact that higher
frequency light is refracted more by a lens than the lower frequencies. As a
result, an image is magnified to a greater extent if the object is
illuminated with higher frequency light. Fight that is attenuated, in the
manner described earlier, such as losing velocity, being scattered, and
being brought to lower frequencies by the redistribution law, will have a
tendency to be refracted less, the farther it travels. Each of these three
factors is, by itself, sufficient to produce this effect. Together they
compound it. Consequently, the image of a distant planet will not be
magnified by a telescope, to the extent that the power would indicate. As a
consequence, the planet will seem to be more distant than it actually is.
The eye, which contains a lens, will play the same kind of trick and produce
the same effect, but to a lesser extent, than with a telescope. A telescope
then will only perform up to its expectations when closer objects are being
observed.
Since electromagnetic radiations have a tendency to lose velocity after
traveling great distances, it follows that the method of bouncing radar off
planets is not reliable. This, including the determining of the Earth's
velocity in its orbit by the alleged precise measuring of the aberration of
light from stars, has supposedly enabled astronomers to calculate the
astronomical unit to an extreme degree of precision. Allegedly, all of the
various methods of determining this unit were in close agreement with each
other. One can only speculate as to how much juggling of figures has taken
place during the process in order to achieve such confirmation, since the
integrity of the scientific community has proven to be less than admirable.
All that can be said about all of these distances is that they differ from
the accepted values."
Notice that he says that not only the visual radiation, i.e. light, is
refracted, but radar bouncing between the Earth and Mars, too.
Again, I don't want to be didactic, but this list is about exposing people
to alternative science concepts, especially in relation to the hollow
planets theory. Let's just say that an ALTERNATIVE science approach was
really not fostered on any other list, which is why we started this one.
The orgone people on this list will notice a whole different way of seeing
orgone and its impact on nature. Cater feels that orgone has quite a role in
geological processes. I tried to bring this out in my article A
Comprehensive, Hollow Earth Geological Model, third one down:
http://www.skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index8.html
Later,
Dharma/Dean