To the group,
When I read the Cater segment on how "clouds don't fall" I was skeptical but curious. I would think there is a more mundane explanantion for what keeps water vapor aloft. I would think it would have more to do with pressure and density. But something I noticed lately really did have me curious. I recently started jogging nightly at a local high school track and they have the water sprinklers on the football field which are constant high pressure jets.
Around the top of the jets a mist of water breaks free and floats with the breeze but does not come down, in fact I saw it actually rising even in the absence of any wind at all. What is interesting is that this mist is made up of large water droplets which are very visible, not like steam, and the fact that the sprinkler water is cold, not hot.
Maybe a high school science teacher could explain this is more simple terms than what Cater has suggested but I remain curious.
Sean
Sean Wrote:
When I read the Cater segment on how "clouds don't fall" I was skeptical but curious. I would think there is a more mundane explanantion for what keeps water vapor aloft. I would think it would have more to do with pressure and density. But something I noticed lately really did have me curious. I recently started jogging nightly at a local high school track and they have the water sprinklers on the football field which are constant high pressure jets.
ยทยทยท
Around the top of the jets a mist of water breaks free and floats with the breeze but does not come down, in fact I saw it actually rising even in the absence of any wind at all. What is interesting is that this mist is made up of large water droplets which are very visible, not like steam, and the fact that the sprinkler water is cold, not hot.
Maybe a high school science teacher could explain this is more simple terms than what Cater has suggested but I remain curious.
Dean Writes:
Sean,
It is good that you are open-minded and curious. But I don't imagine that Cater's explanation of gravity is so " out there " and esoteric. I think that it is on the simple side.
Gravity in relation to density and mass becomes very complicated because you have to wrangle and gyrate to explain how certain gravity phenomena, i.e. clouds, could relate to density and mass. The concept is further complicated because no apparent cause or definition can be assigned to gravity.
With Cater's definition, you just have to keep three things in mind:
For one, positives and negatives attract. That's easy enough.
Second, the negative gravity charge is not so readity perceived because it is low frequency and is generated underground. No wonder it ain't obvious!
And third of all, the atoms of matter have a slight, net positive charge because the velocity of the electrons reduces the electrostatic charge of the electron transforms the charge into magnetic energy.
So all matter ( net positive charge ) is attracted by the negative gravity charge which is imbued in the ground below the surface.
Clouds are an unusually tough nut to crack because it is not understood that a low frequency charge is sitting between the water molecules, nor how.
The simplicity of Cater's concept of gravity is that is is very cohesive. It explains the gravity of any phenomena and it fits in with the geological processes of a hollow planet.
Dharma/Dean