Subject: the bad boy responds
Dean,
I read your response to my last email. You wanted me to respond about clouds.
I can agree with you that there is a charge to clouds. One example of this is how lightning
is a response to the ground being a different polarity than the clouds saturated with moisture,
I have no argument that it very logical of you to suggest that clouds appear to go against
the grain of the normal expectations of gravity. You tie this into the concept that mass itself
doesn't cause gravity but it is the electromagnetic radiation which does the trick. It would
appear to satisfy your theory. I have just taken a bit different view of clouds. As I stated
there can be extremely high discharges of electricity when lightning strikes the ground. Granted,
there is some distinction between the holding of charge in a clouds for some weeks on end
and the lightning displays which have a formidable striking power are two different levels.
-
Scott,
-
This, then, is pretty good evidence that it is electrostatic charge which comprises gravity.
You wanted logic alone. What about the logic that taking a penny or some other inert
object at least in terms of a notable electrical charge being absent and dropping it. The penny
or object of choice will not have any detectable charge or polarity which will even show up
on an electrical meter. Is this correct? The distinction I am wandering around is that the
natural force we know as gravity operates without the presence of a notable amount of electricity.
or electromagnetic radiation which is confused as energy.
-
This is the point. The penny does have a net, positive charge to it. Its behavior in reponse to gravity bears this out. If clouds are electic, then their floating is a pretty good example of repulsion, and when objects experience attraction, this is an indication of a net, positive charge. I'll attach some comments by Mr. Cater in this regard, brief ones.
-
The problem might have to do with the word " detectable " which you used. Well, we might not be able to detect this positive charge, although this is what Dr.Lipmann's experiment proved. I guess that we are theorizing in a deductive way. But the environment in which we work is one of supressed information, misinformation, politics, and financial manipulation. Nobody is going to spell it out for us. We have to find the best explanation/theory for the phenomena which we observe. We are not in a court of law where absolute proof has to be offered. It is a matter of having enough to go on and then following our educated guess from there.
-
Otherwise, we play the game on another man's turf according to his rules and the information which he makes available.
-
And there are going to be differences of opinion. I wanted so much to share some of Mr.Cater's concepts with Jan and to discuss these with him. I threw it around on his list for a few months a year ago. He didn't at all recognize my attempts, so what could I do? In the ultimate issue, I have to respect his opinion. He can go onmaking his presentation- actually, he is doing great yeoman's service for the HET.
-
And then there is Dick. I simply have to accept Dick's opinion and his attachment to Churchward.
Clouds on the other hand are stated as having this polarity or charge to them. If we consider
a more dense object like a spore or pollen seed floating aloft for miles on a slight breeze, can it
not be even more likely that two ordinarily gas molecules hydrogen and oxygen which are buoyant
and can be adjoined on a tiny microscopic scale to form water vapor would not have some right to
float in mid air much more so than the seed pores which are visible to the naked eye and appear
with a little atmospheric turbulence to defy gravity for brief periods?
- Yes, but clouds are not comprised of gas molecules. Clouds spend little, if any, time in a gaseous state. Clouds spend the lion's share of their time being relatively heavier than the surrounding atmosphere, and polar clouds stay frozen, never entering a gaseous state, and remain aloft forrelatively long periods of time.
A bit off topic is the concept
of the malleability of gold (Au). It is my understanding that this very dense element in a surprisingly
small amount can be pounded down to a single layer molecular width and cover an unimaginable
surface area.
I hear you not mentioning Ozone in the higher strata of atmosphere. This is a grouping of
two molecules which considerably "outweigh" the 3 component combination of Ozygen and
and two hydrogen. It floats at the boundary of space and perhaps it is possible that some element
of this polarity of charge as you suggest is what is keeping it aloft. Yet for some reason you missed
possibly an even better example than water in not noting it.
Gas molecules all appear to defy gravity. Why is it that solid objects virtually always fall but
not gas or gas compounds. There is also the matter (no pun intended) of a hot air balloon or better
yet a helium or lighter than air dirigible. These are very small gas molecules which cause the object
or holding container to rise up. Antigravity? No one would suggest this. It is the effect of having
a lighter volume of gas responding to an equal volume of gas above it and they switch places.
- The large, positive zones between gas molecules are havens for soft electrons. Yes, the result is electrostatic repulsion, antigravity.
Bubbles
rising under water is a very rough analogous example. Now, if the water vapor is in very tiny bunches
or packets and the cloud has a natural systemic negative charge, these water vapor compounds
might be repelled from each other and in doing so, spread themselves out in such a way as to cause
the volume of space that they occupy to expand. This in addition to their very tiny nearly naked to the
human eye size causes them to achieve an atmospheric buoyancy not unlike that of a balloon. Could
one not then presume that the natural release of such a charge collapses this virtual balloon volume
of space a given number of water vapor gaseous molecules are inhabiting and cause them to fall
then toward the Earth in the form of a water drop?
It is typical of rainfall for a lightning display to occur prior to the onset of rain though I will
admit that this is not always the case. It might be that an avenue for the transfer of electricity
between cloud and ground exists unlike the typical lightning flash.
In summary, Yes, clouds may indeed have this charge or polarity and it might be described as
antigravity and a repudiation of Newton's mass concept, but I am not convinced that we are comparing
apples to apples. Water certainly has the habit of evaporating upward and no sign of water drops
is ever seen which might suggest that the sunlight which caused the evaporation changed the molecule
to the point where it became buoyant. Hydrogen is linked to the Oxygen molecule by some sort of
bond and maybe a form of water that can be made to rise is a type of molecule that is more spread out.
Can it be that the Sunlight itself actually supplies a charge to these three molecules that allows it to become
lighter than uncombined molecules of the same component gases.
- The large positive zones between water molecules is a haven for soft electrons. Same antigravity, repuslive result as above. When the microscopic dust particle absorbs the negative charge in water molecules, the water eventually drops off and falls, according to its natural, net positive charge.
Mr.Cater's description of the process:
" A paradox seems to exist with regards to clouds. They consist of small water droplets that do not fall. From the standpoint of the properties of water just presented, they should fall. Every water droplet is attached to a dust particle. This dust particle absorbs a high concentration of negative charges from the water. The particle would levitate upward, were it were not for the water droplet holding it down. [ The droplet now bereft of its negative charge, and simply exhibiting the natural, positive charge of matter ] If the amount of water around this dust particle exceeds the critical amount, the droplet will fall as rain. Outer space is permeated with fine dust that continually replaces the dust taken out of the atmosphere by precipitation. Ths dust is vital to sustaining life on a planet. Without it, there would be little or no precipitation.
Under certain conditions, water can lose weight and even levitate. Experiments have shown that water, when ejected in the form of fine jets, will start to levitate after falling a certain distance. Also, the fine spray resulting from waterfalls often has a tendency to levitate upwards. This phenomenon has puzzled many observers. By now, the reason is obvious. [ for the reader of his book ] Such conditions cause the water droplets to be impregnated with an inordinate concentration of soft electrons " [ of a negative charge ]. ( Page 171 of The Awesome Life Force )
Disclaimer: Any one on the list should feel welcome and free to correct any scientific notions that I might
not have quite right.
I take no pleasure in giving Dean a hard time. The fact of the matter is that, whether he thinks he has or
not, he also has been hard on me by not looking at my program and that is a contributory reason for me
getting upset at him. He says I argue and attack and that I don't offer dispassionate logic to back me up.
Well, I just discussed some of my thoughts on clouds and how I don't consider that this is a proper
argument to annul the mass gravity concept. If Dean is correct and a charge was all that was needed
to make the water molecules defy gravity, could we equally well expect a similar additive value to inert
solids to cause them to rise also? They may have a minute charge of polarity but could we ever add
sufficient charge to the atoms of a baseball bat that would cause it to levitate?
-
Yes- this is what happens when Buddhists cause solid objects to levitate by sound. I have attached Mr. Cater's short piece describing this phenomenon above, the second attachment. Three paragraphs, large print, easy read.
-
You know, you ask me to go off and learn your theory, so to speak, but you haven't presented it and schooled people on iton the lists. This is what you want to do. Give bits and pieces, remind them. I've posted all of these explanations before, but you reject them rather than " getting enough to go on," because, initially, they don't correspond to the physics in which you have invested your time and emotions.
-
In the ultimate issue, you just have to let it slide if you disagree. I could be the great savior of Jan's HE philosophy if he'd let me, but hey- I might be wrong, too.
-
And the scientific community is basically too hard to convince, anyway. They've been schooled otherwise. You have to take the case to the people, and they don't care so much about hard science, and they distrust our institutions to a great degree, anyway. So if Jan, Churchward and Cater all all wrong about the technicalities, it isnot going to kill the Hollow Earth Theory anyway. So you can be comfortable around all the different strokes. Just work on presenting your own ideas on the lists, and maybe put up a site with graphs and results that people can go look at without having to learn how to operate some software. It has to be quick and easy nowadays, people are under time pressure.
-
Got to go,
-
Dean
UFO's were also mentioned
in a recent Dean post. I agree that some form of electromagnetic power is causing a true antigravity
reaction in this craft. For Dean's sake, we could call it a reversal in the gravity radiation.
My problem with all this is that we aren't comparing ordinary matter and its native charge with the mystery
which is wrapped up in UFO's. I have read "stories" about such craft and it seems readily apparent that
they have an incredibly more significant degree of power required to allow their function of motion than
that of water vapor in clouds. Now I suppose it is possible that it might all boil down to a similar effect
which both indicates the actual cause and effect of gravity as we know it. I am not convinced. The logic
is too full of gaps and those gaps are all I need to doubt Dean's gravity theory.
As to my behavior, we are all a product of our circumstances. It is true that I have demanded a great
deal of evidence from Dean than some topics I may have investigated, but I just have a philosophical
difference in the degree of proof needed to win the case. He considers me hateful and Dean, please
take this as only an example and not the way I consider you, but consider a small child who is required
by his or her parents to tow the line or meet more of a requirement than the child believes is needed for a
situation. Take what I say with a large grain of salt but, if I am able to influence you to be more logical
and come up with even better science, you may become stronger in the face of adversity and this could
be a long term benefit. Thousands of hours of wind tests are performed on new aerodynamic models
for planes, passenger jets and military fighters. Computer simulations were done. All this extra effort
was made. They were not being prejudicial to the designer of the plane or new technologies being
developed. It is all part of the process to insure safety and in being thorough. Gravity ought to be
equally as important to us to consider in high detail since only after reaching a very thorough understanding
of it will we as a culture be able to defy the natural laws gravity for the betterment of mankind.
Dean is in small part responsible for my lashing out. He says I argue and don't present my own stuff.
A lot of things I wish to communicate are in my program. He is exhibiting his own bias by not allowing
himself to review ideas that I will not communicate in e-mails because they cannot be merely spoken
about in the space and time I have available. I think he is the poorer for not accepting my gracious offer
to share.it. I might actually suggest something that would bolster his positions. How will he know if
he never opts to look at it?
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To review my program Multi.exe simply submit to these two conditions and e-mail me at [email protected]
with the words "I agree" in the subject line which indicates your acceptance of my terms. Thanks for your interest!
- Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished work in progress, AND
- To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the program.
Yahoo Groups removed 2 attachments from this message: NetPositiveAtom.doc (application/msword), Cater Buddhists.doc (application/msword)
Related thread: Clouds and gravity — Scott's reply in the clouds-and-gravity argument