(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2) Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 Sponsored by Vangard Sciences PO BOX 1031 Mesquite, TX 75150 There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS on duplicating, publishing or distributing the files on KeelyNet except where noted! May 21, 1993 CLARK.ASC -------------------------------------------------------------------- This EXCELLENT file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of John Draper. -------------------------------------------------------------------- SOFT PARTICLE PHYSICS: THE ERRONEOUS BASIC ASSUMPTION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY by Richard L. Clark, Ph.D. 10 September, 1982 The basic assumption of General Relativity (and the title of chapter 20 of Einstein's book, Relativity) is: "The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an Argument for the General Postulate of Relativity." The assumption is that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. Since the defined word "Mass" appears in both sides of this supposed equivalence, this brief paper will not digress into the misuses of the term mass in current physics. The important point is that inertia and gravity are neither equal nor derived from common functionings of the Universe. In fact, in the extreme limiting cases, gravity can approach zero while inertia approaches infinity and, obviously, vise versa. Since gravity and inertia have nothing in common, the claimed equivalence is an absurdity. The real origins and functioning of gravity and inertia are covered in the book "Awesome Life Force" by Joseph Cater (1), which describes a principle known as Soft Particle Physics. Gravity is the result of highly penetrating electromagnetic radiations entering a mass. These gravity producing electromagnetic radiations, have a frequency of approximately 1 trillion cps, (1 terahertz) or just below the infrared portion of the standard electromagnetic spectrum. In the absence of these gravitational electromagnetic radiations, a mass has no gravity. Gravity radiation effects were accidentally discovered in Poland in 1927, (Kowsky & Frost), taken over by the Germans in World War II, liberated by the British and Canadians, and found out by the United States in the 1950s. Inertia is the functioning of a mass's electrostatic field to oppose Page 1 change. When change is introduced into, or exists within a mass, the electrostatic charges on the atom or the atomic aggregates, transform part of their electrostatic fields to magnetic fields. This functioning is the phenomenon and concept we call inertia, the third factor in the electrostatic field and magnetic field relationship. In the ancient wisdom of the Great Mother system of knowledge, which is Physics and the universal realities and NOT religion, this subject was well known. The "One" became "Two" which generated the "Third", from which all manifestations originate. The electrostatic field is the One; it becomes Two with movement or velocity on a charged particle to form a magnetic field, which generates the Third, or inertia factor. If the law of the conservation of total system energy is true, the magnetic field increases directly as the electrostatic field decreases. The potential energy (electrostatic field) transforms into kinetic energy (magnetic field) of a moving charge. The inertia of a body IS this transforming function's ABILITY, or to put it another way, how much of the electrostatic potential field BECOMES the magnetic kinetic field when a body is given movement (velocity). Since total energy of the system is constant, whatever the electrostatic charge is originally, limits the maximum inertia of a body. All atoms and molecules have a charge; even the supposed "uncharged" atoms and molecules have a net positive charge in reality. To paraphrase Cater on a generalized form of this law, we can generalize Faraday's Law of Induced electromotive force to grasp this reality: "The induced force produced by a change in velocity is always in such direction as to oppose any change in this velocity." This is another exact definition of inertia. The substitution of velocity for magnetic flux in Faraday's Law, to generalize it, is valid because both are of the same set class in reality. For magnetic flux CAN ONLY EXIST with velocity of body, particle, atom, etc., TRANSFORMED FROM the electrostatic field. (From the above brief explanation of what inertia really is, it appears that the engineered control of it is possible. If possible, inertia engineering may stop or at least decrease, the transformation of the electrostatic field to the magnetic field, since inertia is the result of this transformation.) It appears gravity and inertia have no real relationship whatsoever to each other. If this is correct, the famous equivalence is a fiction. INERTIA is an INTERNAL energy system phenomenon and GRAVITY is an EXTERNAL energy system phenomenon. How much more different can they be? The fact that the weight of a body is directly proportional to its inertial properties and that proportion is always constant, does not alter the above analysis. For weight is a gravity function system, or external energy absorption limiting constraint, which varies with each type of mass, thus hardly usable as Relativity has used it. Page 2 Let us briefly review the "proofs" or "experimental confirmations" of General Relativity. The three most famous "proofs" should be enough; 1) The perihelion of Mercury, 2) the deflection of light by a gravitational field, 3) and the displacement of spectral lines toward red. The motion in the perihelion of Mercury is so small that any error could exist. There exists raw data which denies the supposed deflection of light in a gravitational field. In the May 1959 issue of Scientific American, pages 152 and 153, is a diagram of General Relativity's predicted position of stars and the actual observed position of stars during the 1952 total eclipse. At least one third of the stars are displaced in the wrong direction between prediction and actual position. Another one third make the right direction but are not even near on position, predicted to actual. This is proof? So much for curved space and warps, etc., and odd geometries. The displacement of spectral lines toward the red is the poorest proof of the three. Here we have the "Big Bang" and other not so famous theories tied into the plot. This apparent Doppler effect, the shift toward red, is not proof of an opening stellar velocity phenomenon at all. The apparent Doppler effect, or red shift, is common to all light and is part of the Law of Redistribution of Energy. When light interacts with matter, new light results with a lower average frequency than the original light, a shift to red. This can be demonstrated by taking a beam of light in the blue or violet end of the visible spectrum and pass it through a fairly long series of light filters. The light filters can be ANY type, all blue, red, violet or combinations. The light WILL ALWAYS emerge from the last filter as RED light, if enough filters are passed through in the test. In open space the star light traveling to Earth has ENDLESS matter interactions, and thus, frequency drop, the shift toward red. From the above it appears that the Theory of General Relativity, obscures rather than reveals reality. -------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Awesome Life Force, by Joseph Cater. May be obtained from Cadake Industries, PO Box 99, Long Creek, South Carolina 29658. (Richard L. Clark, 4015 Crown Point Drive, P3, San Deigo, California 92109.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have comments or other information relating to such topics as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page. Thank you for your consideration, interest and support. Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet -------------------------------------------------------------------- If we can be of service, you may contact Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3