> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 07/24/2010 01:39 PM, David Jonsson wrote: >> >> Thanks, interesting. >> >> I started reading and I wonder what >> >> *EM accelerating force (gravity)* >> *frequencies of 7.07Hz, 14.14Hz, 21.21Hz and 28.28Hz* >> >> means in document GravityPrst22.ppt page 16 >> >> I don't think I will read more before I have the answer to this >> question. >> >> >> I think you should read the other pdf (part one) first. They are listed >> in >> inverse order. >> All this is very interesting, and coincide with my intuitions regarding >> these issues. >> >> Probably the values of these frequencies (or of its associated >> longitudes ) >> can be deducted in turn from the geometry of the solar system. That is, >> Earth's geometry is not the cause of these frequencies, but conversely, >> these frequencies are the cause of the Earth's geometry, to a certain >> extent. The other extent being dictated by opportunity, and of course, >> evolution. >> > > I have read that part now Gravity4BB.ppt and i don't think it explains > enough. It just takes some distances regarding earth and divides them with > the speed on light to get the frequencies.
Because those distances correspond to those resonant frequencies. The main ideas of the presentation, and I agree that they are not clearly stated, but don't forget that these slides are probably just a part of a public talk, or have and associated text, are: - The earth is like a big antenna that, like any antenna, resonates at some fundamental frequencies and their harmonics, which are given by the antenna's geometry and dimensions. - The earth is like a big electric motor. > > I also don't understand why it talks about a hollow earth. It talks about it just as a possibility. It states something like: What if the antenna where a hollow sphere? and proceeds to derive the corresponding accelerations and needed fields for that case. It makes the same with a solid sphere, and tick disc vs. thin disc hollow sphere. Lastly, it sticks with the "solid sphere" hypothesis, and assumes a big negative acceleration in the center as a consequence. > > Another strangeness is that they say that the conclusion of zero > acceleration in the Earth center is new. Acceleration in the center jhas > always been assumed to be zero. I haven't seen that. I'll check later, but I think the new idea is that the acceleration at the center is not zero, but a big negative value. Negative meaning "towards the center". > > How can they just make blunt statements like this on page 94? > > "It is all these wave harmonics mixing in the middle of the liquid outer > core that cause it to rotate (spin), works just like the motor armature it > is. As the cores rate of rotation (revolutions/hour) is much higher than > the earths rotation (revolutions/day) there is a friction line generated > in > the region of the outer core to mantle interface. It is this friction that > causes the planets internal heat." > > > Why would the outer layers of Earth rotate slower than the inner? Because of the electric motor assumption? If you consider that the electric field is oscillating on the outside, and that the core is liquid, it makes sense to assume the liquid center will be rotating at a higher rate than the outer solid disc. I agree that these statements are blunt. And they are probably also incorrect. In particular, I consider that the idea that standard electromagnetic theory is enough to account for Earth's gravitational field and rotation is incorrect. But nevertheless, I think that something like that which is stated in the slides is happening, in the sense that: - Gravity is "no more" than an elecromagnetic phenomenon. - The "electric motor" and "antenna" ideas are very valuable as hypothesis, and essentially correct. But I'm practically sure that an "extended" form of electromagnetism is needed to account for gravity, due to the objections mentioned previosuly, mainly the lack of simple gravity shielding mechanisms. I can be mistaken, and that is the reason why I want to explore this idea: what if standard electromagnetism is enough? > > David >
