I think a lot of you might be able to keep up with this old high school dropout. I won't be putting any big equations on the chalkboard. I don't even have the math chops for that. I will keep the aim on this one little equation:
F (force) equals G (the gravitational constant -- or, a number to allow for working measures of weight with measures of distance, i.e., grams with meters) times m1 times m2 (two physical bodies, multiplying each other by the values of their masses) divided by r (the radius -- the distance between their centers) squared.
F = G X m1 X m2 / r^2
I haven't the time tonight to get on a roll with this. I do wish this forum had a few more bells and whistles though. I will be copy/pasting some stuff here that has super and sub scripts. I don't know how that is going to work.
Here's the point for now. Issac Newton, bless his soul, gave us this equation which was to become the LAW! Contained within this equation are two huge (IMHO) assumptions which I feel are completely unquestioned and incorrect. In Newton's empirical experimentation by which he developed the equation, one of the emms was the Earth, and the other, a falling object. Both were above the division line and are totally interchangeable. Either could be the Earth. Either could be the falling object. So, what does this assume about both?
Is there a flaw in the Universal Law of Gravitation? How far into physics, cosmology, and cosmogony, does this [f]law reach? Are planets, and any bit of mass, equivalent, both in terms of their masses, and of their dynamics, i.e., their structures and forces?
Good night. See you soon, if I possibly can.
Namasté
The Universal [F]Law of Gravitation.
Henh. I think I like that. Thank you, Sir Issac. I couldn't have done it without you.
F = G X m1 X m2 / r^2
One of the falling objects that Newton concentrated upon in his empirical research was the cannonball. Various fired cannonballs were to occupy the role of m2, though, as I stated last night, could just as accurately be called m1. The aforementioned assumptions aside, in the flight of these cannonballs, Newton could see the mechanisms were there by which such a cannonball could actually orbit the Earth, given the proper acceleration and trajectory. By the fact that we were able to, and continue to, place cannonball-like objects into orbits around this and other gravitating spheres, the two unfounded assumptions within the equation have been taken to be the actuality.
These two assumptions should be deeply scrutinized. They are these:
1. What is massively true of the cannonball, is massively true of the Earth.
2. What is dynamically true of the Earth, is dynamically true of the cannonball.
Earth here could have been any gravitating celestial sphere. The cannonball could have been any particular falling object.
But essentially the take is this:
All objects having mass, have an inherent dynamic force of gravity, simply by token of their having mass.
All gravitating bodies are such by token of their having mass, this mass having been calculated after, and by way of, the previous assumption. This value being a measure directly in ratio to how much mass, calculated by way of its 'F,' or force, in its presumed mutual attraction to the known gravitating body.
Perhaps someone else has already stated this in a better way:
GRAVITATION, n.
The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportional to the quantity of matter they contain -- the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another. This is a lovely and edifying illustration of how science, having made A the proof of B, makes B the proof of A.
from The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce*
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil%27s_Dictionary
===========================
Coming soon: Why is it believed that planets, stars, and galaxies have dense cores, and not vacuum/void centers?
Are we having fun yet?
GRAVITATION, n.
The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportional to the quantity of matter they contain — the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another. This is a lovely and edifying illustration of how science, having made A the proof of B, makes B the proof of A.
from The Devil’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce*
In that vein a similar thing exists with the speed of light and the definition of the meter being dependent on each other, essentially fixing the speed of light when there were historical measurements that exceeded what one would expect from instrumentation error.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
An excellent summary!
Why is it believed that planets, stars, and galaxies have dense cores, and not vacuum/void centers?
As per the subject of this thread, there ain't going to be no danged polar openings that will amount to much on a solid core planet. And so, back to:
F = G X m1 X m2 / r^2...
...which might answer the question in the quote. It is because Newton essentially used his cannonballs to weigh all the celestial spheres. Add to that, by him guessing that gravity is merely some magical characteristic of all matter, everything we now take for granted as the nature, structure (and mathematically projecting, by way of this formula), even our current ideas of the origins of the seen and unseen universe, goes back to this double-edged single assumption. Everything science proclaims about the macrocosm has erupted from these assumptions about mass and gravity. I like to call it, "mathturbation." (And I don't lisp.)
We have, after four hundred years, seen the whole of physics grow out of the values projected from the trajectories of cannonballs. Yes indeed, we sure can put cannonball-like objects into orbit, all day long. This still doesn't mean that cannonballs have gravity, or that Earth has a solid nickel/iron core, pressed in upon so hard by way of the back-tracking of the inverse square rule (preset in that equation) of all the mass of solid Earth, creating so much pressure at the center that even though the nickel and iron which is beyond its melting temperature, those metals have been forced to crystallize into a solid. And even though iron loses its ability to maintain a magnetic field at somewhere around 800F, we are to believe this imagined solid hot core supports the geomagnetism of this sphere.
Then we might see some doublethink, when it is seen that at the center of mass of a solid sphere, all the mass of the sphere is outward from this center. If mass is what makes gravity, it should all be pulling away, omnidirectionally, from the center. If mass has the gravity, what accounts for the pressures needed to crystallize the core? Only in science can we have it both ways, eh?
Earth and Moon ring like bells, seismically. Hollow spheres can ring. Solid spheres will thud.
Science tells us, "The core is solid because the P waves can't go through the solid core." That's what we're told, all right. They say this proves it. I bet the seismic waves would do better traversing a solid core than a hollow core. What do you think? Well, unless we go into the polar openings, we won't know.
It can be shown that fluid vortex motions develop E- in their centripetal whorls. If we've blown all the math by way of that first equation of cosmology and cosmogony, and we're calculating masses far in excess of the reality for all the celestial spheres and their spiraling conglomerations (the galaxies, which look as suction spiral motions to my eyes), we may have to start over at nearly the beginning. Doing so, how many questions might be more easily answered about the nature of damned nearly everything?
I see hollow spheres fitting right in with the Electric Universe. Solid, well, not so much.
They have done tests that duplicate a planet forming to the best that they can and in the tests there is a void in the center. I don't think that we can eliminate the possibility that there in a void in the center of the Earth. As far as huge polar openings I don't have a strong opinion on. The northern lights might be an effect from a light source from a light from the inside the Earth shinning out on to the atmosphere, but then again, there is already a scientific reason given that scientists feel very accurately explains the phenomenon so its difficult to argue the large polar openings stance.
At the very least its a fact that there are very large voids all throughout the Earth and an ocean bigger than all the surface oceans below the crust. Another thing we have to keep in mind is that the ice caps are frozen fresh water. Salt water does not make ice in the way fresh water does. Where does all of that fresh water come from to make the solid fresh water type of ice? What do the polar bears drink? They would dehydrate and die in short order if they were to drink salt water.
If you use a formula that doesn't accurately depict the physics involved and type of energies involved during the creation process of Earth, then the end result would obviously come to a conclusion that isn't accurate.
It seems pretty far fetched that there would be large polar openings, but on the scale of the Earth they might be small. Who's to know since the conditions they would be in are the most extreme in the world and we can't openly investigate since there is a military presence there who will deny you access, and its a no fly zone. Pretty suspicious if you ask me.
Just on that question of suspicion, maybe 35 years ago I went to So.Cal. for a few months and decided to visit the Cal. Tech. Library. Why? Because I had already tried the Seattle and Portland central libraries to try to find satellite photos taken over the poles. NASA was hawking their book with all the Landsat Series photos; photos of all the sub-arctic land masses from space. I wanted to see clear summertime photos of both poles and could not find these anywhere.
All anyone has to do is look up and nearly all the satellites one might see are on north/south polar orbits. That's where the lion's share of traffic was in the early 1980s (and still is); over the poles. But for us, the people who are made to pay the bills for NASA, the military, and the spooks, sorry Charlie, it looks like we just don't have the clearance. If it's about clearance, then it's about secrecy.
And so, here's how my trip to the Cal. Tech. Library went: First off, all there was in that library... THAT library, of all libraries... was only the same old Landsat book! I was able to question the very man whose library this was. I asked the Cal. Tech. Librarian for the satellite images I wanted, and then questioned why his library was lacking such important science. He acted genuinely shocked when I brought this to his attention. He pondered the issue and seemed apologetic. Then he said, "Here's the phone number of my friend. He's the librarian at JPL (the Jet Propulsion Labotatory)." I went to a phone and made the call to the JPL Librarian and told him what I wanted. Without pause he asked, "Who is this?" I told him I was just someone researching. I told him who had given me his number. Then I was told the photos were not available.
========================
With Newton's law unquestioned, where will experimenter bias fall? It is believed that the Cavendish Experiment measured the mass of the Earth, but it was done with the assumption of mass as the source of gravity. It was looking for what it expected to find. Suspended lead balls were used as masses and an attractive force was looked for between individual lead balls. A force was found, and the mass of the Earth was then calculated based on what was expected to be the dynamics of those inert masses. What was not considered, so far as I can determine, was that being within Earths gravitational (or electric?) field, would similar masses of two different volumes have charges of two different field strengths induced from the gravity field in which the whole of the experiment was contained?
Consider if someone were to build a similar experiment using iron balls instead of lead, and then conduct the experiment within a large extraneous magnetic field. Would not it be expected that the local magnetic field would induce a secondary magnetic field around the iron balls, making them act as magnets? Experience shows that magnetizable objects become magnets within such environments. The theory on this is that magnetizable materials condense theoretical magnetic lines of force, or flux. This characteristic is why transformers and motor rotors and field coils have iron cores to aid in the magnetic coupling.
So, with Cavendish's experiment being done here on the surface of our gravitating planet, even though he did everything he could to isolate his workings*, where was the consideration that the highly massive objects that were the heart of the experiment would not be condensing this Earth's electrogravitic field strength, creating the observed mutual attractions?
*To prevent air currents and temperature changes from interfering with the measurements, Cavendish placed the entire apparatus in a wooden box about 2 feet (0.61 m) thick, 10 feet (3.0 m) tall, and 10 feet (3.0 m) wide, all in a closed shed on his estate. Through two holes in the walls of the shed, Cavendish used telescopes to observe the movement...
*Wikipedia: "Cavendish Experiment"
===============================
Gravity attracts all matter, ferrous or non-ferrous. much as do the globes of operating Van de Graff generators. Is it not fair, with the field electric charge of the planet being immeasurable from a point within the field, to suggest that gravity and electric charge could be the same force? The characteristics of lift and propulsion that are shown in the T. Townsend Brown patents suggest this all the more.
Hollow charged spheres could not fit better into a model of an electric universe.
There is a lot of outstanding information in this
You guys are clearly overworking my tiny brain
Good stuff
Very nice, Satyagraha. I concur. Hey... ummm... you got that JPL library number any more?? Lol
Somehow I missed this post, though it looks as if I have been trying to answer it specifically here.
The difficulty of determining the exact correlation of the exact energies and causation associated with our reality is that you have to have the correct science base in order to recognize the correct properties of everything and how they relate. If our science is based off from measuring energies with the wrong scientific assumptions then the instruments built to measure effects, affects, properties, etc will lead the research on a slightly skewed path, only leading to more questions and more theories with fundamental holes in them. Until the science is fundamentally revamped with the correct basis we will always be chasing our tails and never be able to correctly unlock the fundamental basis of our reality.
I would say that the inferred equivalence of m1 and m2 in the Universal [F]Law of Gravitation is just that wrong scientific assumption we are seeking. I could not have stated your post better. Try to really think how far-reaching the assumption of that equivalence can be, and into how many of the sciences its tentacles extend. Where do all the missing matter, black holes, big bangs... even the strong and weak nuclear forces go, if it turns out that gravity has all along been electric charge? All these are products of the mathematics after...
F = G X m1 X m2 / r^2.
Everything is seen with this, the grandpappy of all materialist science as just the way of things. The "Law of Gravity" is the cliché benchmark for saying of what is sure, and what is absurd. It's a Hell of a cosmic joke, if I am correct.
Humbly submitted for your approval... in the Twilight Zone...
Namasté,
Satya
Did I run everyone off? This thread's gone very quiet.
I really want to make the case for hollow planets here. How am I doing?
Your doing very well. I am convinced. You didn't run me off. IMHO, I think we are more looking for convincing evidence in the way of actual leaks and stories now. Math and scientific experiments are on our side, now we need to find military operations, leaks and other real physical evidence backing up the math and science that alludes to the Hollow Earth Theory.
That brings to mind something I read back in the mid-nineties, soon after I first got on line. I read a report at the time that all sightings of the large black triangles followed an interesting pattern. I wish I could find that report again. It named some officially designated class of Air Force base that were common around the continent, and said that if one drew straight lines between all those particular bases, every one of those sightings happened within fifty miles of one of those lines.
Art Bell had one of those sightings himself. One night a caller to Art Bell reported one passing low overhead on a dark night. He said he had a rifle and started shooting at it, and someone speaking American English shouted down something like, "Hey asshole, knock off the shooting!" Some years later I had a neighbor tell me she saw one come over right here an hour before dawn.
I have long assumed that the black triangles (the ones that are "ours" at any rate) are simply three Biefeld-Brown gravitors, spread out to allow them to work together, or off each other, because if only a free single one is energized, it will flip over, upside-down, and smash into to the Earth. Such is the polarized nature of electrogravitation. While operating around planets, better keep that negative side facing down.
To understand the electric universe should be to start understanding gravity and its generation. I have a few ideas about that. I believe there is more than one way to skin that cat, or spin up those ethers. Of course the forces that are doing it now might not want anyone else in the game.
I don't agree with Jan Lamprect's politics, but his theories regarding seismology of the earth as it relates to a hollow earth model are quite interesting:
Jan Lamprecht Hollow Earth Theory
