electric universe/polar opening
- Thread starter naphtha
- Start date
-
Hey Guest !
Welcome to the THC+ Forums. To participate you need to be, or at some point have been, a THC+ Member. If that's you, your THC+ Username is already here, but you need to establish a separate password for the forums, since access doesn't rely on your THC+ account being active. Just click the "Forgot Password" link and follow the prompts. Thanks and enjoy!
While diamagnetism is a property of water, it does not follow that diamagnetism is the cause of the tides. In addition, none of the people you mention have ever discussed a flat Earth.
<img src="https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M03804071939ca1a5bc3df2e4beb7b0e1o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=283&h=172" alt="" />
<img src="https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M03804071939ca1a5bc3df2e4beb7b0e1o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=283&h=172" alt="" />
Yes but I wasn't using this as a proof of a flat earth. Think what you want to on that. I have no opinion. What would you prescribe as to the cause of tides. A mass sucking other masses due to its own mass which isn't understood or proven. I'm saying. Magnetism/electricity causes tides. I won't buy it "cause you said so". Here's a case awaiting an authentic counter to what you witnessed. I supplied a possibility. Also
Polar opening? Comment?
Polar opening? Comment?
If you are saying magnetism/electricity causes tides then I would say I agree in a roundabout way (explained below). The video link you posted shows diamagnetism in water then starts to discuss tidal cycles, and theoriezed tracts for the orbits of the sun and moon about a discoid (flat) earth. I was left to ponder the effect of diamagnetism on tides and a flat earth model with tides being the result of repulsion rather than attraction. It is not unreasonable I would find that a plug for a particular viewpoint in light of your posting the video.
With regard to gravity I do believe in gravity, albeit a more dynamic form than in conventional theory as it is based on the flow of ether through a mass. It does fit in with magnetism/electricity being the ultimate cause as the atoms comprising matter are micro-electromagnetic dynamos of ether flow causing a small ether drift toward all masses which accumulates in larger masses.
<img src="http://aetherforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/tesla-quote.png" alt="" />
With regard to a polar opening it's definitley possible they exist or have existed (I have heard they might be blocked off today - this would preclude a smaller opening than most of the accounts though), I don't have definitive evidence but I would lean toward the possibility of a polar opening based on there being several accounts from early polar exporers of having ventured into more temperate lands with accompanying compass anomalies (dipping of the needle) and a different look to the sun after venturing into the interior of the polar opening. The fact that both poles have such restrictive access is interesting in light of the polar caps having some of the most inhospitable climates on Earth.
With regard to gravity I do believe in gravity, albeit a more dynamic form than in conventional theory as it is based on the flow of ether through a mass. It does fit in with magnetism/electricity being the ultimate cause as the atoms comprising matter are micro-electromagnetic dynamos of ether flow causing a small ether drift toward all masses which accumulates in larger masses.
<img src="http://aetherforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/tesla-quote.png" alt="" />
With regard to a polar opening it's definitley possible they exist or have existed (I have heard they might be blocked off today - this would preclude a smaller opening than most of the accounts though), I don't have definitive evidence but I would lean toward the possibility of a polar opening based on there being several accounts from early polar exporers of having ventured into more temperate lands with accompanying compass anomalies (dipping of the needle) and a different look to the sun after venturing into the interior of the polar opening. The fact that both poles have such restrictive access is interesting in light of the polar caps having some of the most inhospitable climates on Earth.
Cool, I agree with all above stated. If a polar opening existed into the inner earth, that was in the ocean, how it is theorized as physically possible? Well this is all I meant as a possible example as to how the ocean could stay the edges and create that maritime tunnel. With the example of the stacked magnets, I seen how that was totally possible.
I agree with the ether, but how would this effect the vacuum of space? Does it exist? (just a question I had after your show I wanted to ask your take on).
And like Eric dollard said. " nobody knows what the sun js".... he said his guess was "it's plasma"... that's what I was referencing. If the sun had a positive charge and the moon a negative, with the water being diamagnetic, wouldn't you absolutely expect to see some reaction? If it is plasma and electric then you would kinda have to expect each to have a charge. Positive or negative. It's gotta be either. Funny how sea water is outstanding St conducting electricity.
I agree with the ether, but how would this effect the vacuum of space? Does it exist? (just a question I had after your show I wanted to ask your take on).
And like Eric dollard said. " nobody knows what the sun js".... he said his guess was "it's plasma"... that's what I was referencing. If the sun had a positive charge and the moon a negative, with the water being diamagnetic, wouldn't you absolutely expect to see some reaction? If it is plasma and electric then you would kinda have to expect each to have a charge. Positive or negative. It's gotta be either. Funny how sea water is outstanding St conducting electricity.
While I have heard that the longitudinal energy from the sun and moon have differing polarities, that is not how the magnetic fields surrounding planets operate as they have both a north and south pole. I would not expect this to have a major impact on the tides due to the weak magnetic field around the moon. I misspoke in my interview when I said there would be a pinch effect in the moon, while there is a concentration of etheric energy inside it has not "kicked off" into a pinch.
The sun has a large magnetic field but it is far away and the earth's magnetic field predominates around the planet and at it's surface except during solar storms which can heavily disrupt the field and very rarely cause it to flip. The tides are largely the result of the proximity of the moon and it's gravitational pull although that does not mean there may not be other longitudinal atmospheric effects that could impact tides to a minor degree under normal circumstances.
The sun has a large magnetic field but it is far away and the earth's magnetic field predominates around the planet and at it's surface except during solar storms which can heavily disrupt the field and very rarely cause it to flip. The tides are largely the result of the proximity of the moon and it's gravitational pull although that does not mean there may not be other longitudinal atmospheric effects that could impact tides to a minor degree under normal circumstances.
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.
Exactly. In which this topic has came down to two different schools of thought basically, and this is the division of the subject. I couldn't formulate the words as you said them, so I'm glad you came along. I digress. Interesting isn't it though? I accept the ether but I find it next to impossible to explain away solid planetary objects inside the ether. They rule each other out. It's one or the other.
<blockquote>
I accept the ether but I find it next to impossible to explain away solid planetary objects inside the ether. They rule each other out. It’s one or the other.
</blockquote>
Any particular reason for this stance?
I accept the ether but I find it next to impossible to explain away solid planetary objects inside the ether. They rule each other out. It’s one or the other.
</blockquote>
Any particular reason for this stance?
If your on a smart phone, turn your device sideways for a landscape view. He said:
"I accept the ether but I find it next to impossible to explain away solid planetary objects inside the ether. They rule each other out. It’s one or the other."
Any particular reason for this stance?
"I accept the ether but I find it next to impossible to explain away solid planetary objects inside the ether. They rule each other out. It’s one or the other."
Any particular reason for this stance?
Another 2 major problem we have is within the scientific process and ego. The nature of our reality has been proven to be elastic and fluid in nature with unexplained Phenomenon in all areas of scientific research that are not repeatable. This conundrum is a major problem. Science has to have steady, repeatable results but the true nature of reality is not always steady and repeatable so they ignore those instances and move on instead of allowing them into the research and trying to understand the anything thats not easily repeatable with their criteria and set of laws. Which leads to the other major problem: ego.
The ego of the scientists will not allow them to admit they might be wrong. Even faced with a good amount of evidence they will ignore, argue against or try to discredit the evidence at all cost.
Even given the current climate of, and inherent properties within, the scientific community and the processes that are adhered to (which are a necessity in almost all circumstances), its my opinion that there is more proof that our universe is electric in nature. Almost an organic electrical digital nature with a consciousness with the Ether being an informational force of potentiality that flows through everything. So the Ether has the ability to hold things apart or together but also intelligently keep a balance of things. Since the Ether permeates all things it has the ability to actively (consciously) keep a balance dependent upon all the factors. The Ether uses energies as both an informative input as well as apply them as forces of work to accomplish a balance in the system.
I believe that Tesla and others recognized this and tapped into the potential of the Ether If you properly create a pathway for the Ether to apply potentiality to in the form of energetic force by way of creating an imbalance, the Ether will then apply the correct amount of energy to balance the circumstance. If you apply an electric motor to the Ether device you could increase the work output and the Ether force would always supply the correct amount of potential energy to accommodate the power demand.
Now, if you put these in terms of a universe, solar system, sun or planet you can see how the bodies could be looked at like an Ether apparatus... or transformer, like Eric Dollard explained the Sun is in his best estimate. So instead of the sun warming the Earth by its proximity or rays, there is a constant imbalance of energy the Earth needs, the Ether senses it and uses the energies around to apply the correct amount. We know the Earth, Sun and moon are different than what we have been told as well as the true nature of reality. They all have to be in harmony and have a level of communication between them in order for things to work. Nature is the master of efficiency. I think the answers are both very difficult and very simple. The difficulty is rethinking and relearning everything we know. The simplicity is that the nature of our reality, while complex, will always use the most simple way to accomplish the tasks with the least amount of energy loss/transference.
I'm not sure if this helped you visualize or understand the "Harmony of the Spheres" at it were, but I hope it shed enough light in the darkness for you to find your path to the information and understanding you desire.
The ego of the scientists will not allow them to admit they might be wrong. Even faced with a good amount of evidence they will ignore, argue against or try to discredit the evidence at all cost.
Even given the current climate of, and inherent properties within, the scientific community and the processes that are adhered to (which are a necessity in almost all circumstances), its my opinion that there is more proof that our universe is electric in nature. Almost an organic electrical digital nature with a consciousness with the Ether being an informational force of potentiality that flows through everything. So the Ether has the ability to hold things apart or together but also intelligently keep a balance of things. Since the Ether permeates all things it has the ability to actively (consciously) keep a balance dependent upon all the factors. The Ether uses energies as both an informative input as well as apply them as forces of work to accomplish a balance in the system.
I believe that Tesla and others recognized this and tapped into the potential of the Ether If you properly create a pathway for the Ether to apply potentiality to in the form of energetic force by way of creating an imbalance, the Ether will then apply the correct amount of energy to balance the circumstance. If you apply an electric motor to the Ether device you could increase the work output and the Ether force would always supply the correct amount of potential energy to accommodate the power demand.
Now, if you put these in terms of a universe, solar system, sun or planet you can see how the bodies could be looked at like an Ether apparatus... or transformer, like Eric Dollard explained the Sun is in his best estimate. So instead of the sun warming the Earth by its proximity or rays, there is a constant imbalance of energy the Earth needs, the Ether senses it and uses the energies around to apply the correct amount. We know the Earth, Sun and moon are different than what we have been told as well as the true nature of reality. They all have to be in harmony and have a level of communication between them in order for things to work. Nature is the master of efficiency. I think the answers are both very difficult and very simple. The difficulty is rethinking and relearning everything we know. The simplicity is that the nature of our reality, while complex, will always use the most simple way to accomplish the tasks with the least amount of energy loss/transference.
I'm not sure if this helped you visualize or understand the "Harmony of the Spheres" at it were, but I hope it shed enough light in the darkness for you to find your path to the information and understanding you desire.
I know the two of you are conversing about the video and how the science can be applied to further other theories. I'm just trying to filter the information past the current theories and laws of physics to help apply them to a clean slate so we can try to realize the true physics... which I believe has already been recognized and put aside or covered up. In addition, I wanted to further a few points along a path that leads to a bigger picture, realize the nature of the entirety of it and suggest a path back to the conversation with a different approach in an attempt to understand the subject in a different light.
<blockquote>The difficulty is rethinking and relearning everything we know.</blockquote>
Yes, and without such a rethinking and relearning, how far could we get. It's been being worked around for four centuries and here we are, stuck to a planet, not understanding how.
When we say "electric universe," how much might the discussion evolve if we were to think "electrostatic" instead of "electromagnetic?"
<blockquote>Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed...</blockquote>
We deal with magnetism from electric force only where there is an electric current. Such current requires a conducting medium. The force, or voltage if you will, is not inert when current is not flowing. When we alternate the current, whether at one cycle in ten minutes, or into the high gigahertz, we can radiate EM waves. These waves plug along at so-called light speed. Pull the conduction out of the picture and just holding the charge; has everything ceased to have effects of action at distance?
Who has ever measured the static charge of this Earth, or any celestial sphere? We are as fish in the ocean, wondering what wet might be. What created the thunderbolts of the ancients was not the plasma current discharges, it was of the electric potentials of the spinning spheres! The currents were secondary, and only made possible by a certain proximity of those spheres involved.
The electric universe is powered by <strong>potential</strong>, acting via the ethers, right now, instantaneously, omnidirectionally. The ether is not a stationary and fixed unit, it is a fluid, acting as a fluid, spinning the whole enchilada, based on potential at the root of all energy. It is not material, it makes material from itself by inducing motion. It spins itself into the whorls of the primary first units we can call matter. It spins the galaxies around each other.
Michelson's and Morley's interferometer was created to prove or disprove the existence of <strong>a stationary ether in space</strong>. It <em>did</em> disprove this. It did not disprove the existence of the ether in which it, the experiment itself, was being moved, along with Southern California and the rest of the planet, solar system, galaxy, and beyond.
Anti-gravity, as the term is used today, is a misnomer. All our forms of flight (at least the ones the powers that be are willing to show us) are anti-gravity. The flying saucers are gravity generators! They are operated with a knowledge of electro-gravitation and an understand that this planet has a negative static charge at its surface. They produce a negative electorstatic charge on their surfaces and zip the fuck out of here, pronto!
More later if anyone wants to talk about it. We might go after the Universal Law of Gravitation if you'd like. That's how far back into the problems of science we'll have to venture if we ever want to get it sorted properly.
Yes, and without such a rethinking and relearning, how far could we get. It's been being worked around for four centuries and here we are, stuck to a planet, not understanding how.
When we say "electric universe," how much might the discussion evolve if we were to think "electrostatic" instead of "electromagnetic?"
<blockquote>Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed...</blockquote>
We deal with magnetism from electric force only where there is an electric current. Such current requires a conducting medium. The force, or voltage if you will, is not inert when current is not flowing. When we alternate the current, whether at one cycle in ten minutes, or into the high gigahertz, we can radiate EM waves. These waves plug along at so-called light speed. Pull the conduction out of the picture and just holding the charge; has everything ceased to have effects of action at distance?
Who has ever measured the static charge of this Earth, or any celestial sphere? We are as fish in the ocean, wondering what wet might be. What created the thunderbolts of the ancients was not the plasma current discharges, it was of the electric potentials of the spinning spheres! The currents were secondary, and only made possible by a certain proximity of those spheres involved.
The electric universe is powered by <strong>potential</strong>, acting via the ethers, right now, instantaneously, omnidirectionally. The ether is not a stationary and fixed unit, it is a fluid, acting as a fluid, spinning the whole enchilada, based on potential at the root of all energy. It is not material, it makes material from itself by inducing motion. It spins itself into the whorls of the primary first units we can call matter. It spins the galaxies around each other.
Michelson's and Morley's interferometer was created to prove or disprove the existence of <strong>a stationary ether in space</strong>. It <em>did</em> disprove this. It did not disprove the existence of the ether in which it, the experiment itself, was being moved, along with Southern California and the rest of the planet, solar system, galaxy, and beyond.
Anti-gravity, as the term is used today, is a misnomer. All our forms of flight (at least the ones the powers that be are willing to show us) are anti-gravity. The flying saucers are gravity generators! They are operated with a knowledge of electro-gravitation and an understand that this planet has a negative static charge at its surface. They produce a negative electorstatic charge on their surfaces and zip the fuck out of here, pronto!
More later if anyone wants to talk about it. We might go after the Universal Law of Gravitation if you'd like. That's how far back into the problems of science we'll have to venture if we ever want to get it sorted properly.
Very interesting. I sure wish I had the time and resources to do a proper investigation to figure it all out. I'm not sure how far I would make it before I reach the limit of my gray matter but it sure would be fun to find out!
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 <em>even</em> have the math chops for that. I will keep the aim on this one little equation:
<blockquote>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</blockquote>
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 <em>the</em> <strong>LAW!</strong> 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
<blockquote>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</blockquote>
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 <em>the</em> <strong>LAW!</strong> 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
<strong>The Universal [F]Law of Gravitation.</strong>
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:
<blockquote>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* </blockquote>
* 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?
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:
<blockquote>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* </blockquote>
* 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?
<blockquote> 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* </blockquote>
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.
<a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all">https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all</a>
<blockquote> Why is it believed that planets, stars, and galaxies have dense cores, and not vacuum/void centers?</blockquote>
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.
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.