Excuse me! But I noticed that, in the bar magnet experiment, the north pole of one magnet tended to gravitate towards the south pole of the other magnet. Not the first time or two, however, and this could have been caused by hand motion that caused interference. But the last two times the tendency of north - south attraction was clear enough.
When she states that gravity is of a magnetic nature (or electromagnetic), then repulsive ability is implicit. For example, the two north poles of a magnet do repulse each other.
And I rhetorically ask, why don't clouds fall ? Because clouds are electrically charged (and how!) and they experience repulsion in relation to the gravity-inducing radiations emitted by the Earth.
Scientists refer to cloud chamber experiments and speak of the moisture particles constantly passing from a vaporous to a liquid state; and that the vaporous state, so to speak, is what keeps them afloat.
However, I would like to point out that the moisture particles in clouds in the polar regions during the winter must be frozen solid, but these clouds stay afloat. This is because the clouds are pure water and the hydrogen particles are very much negatively charged - they harbor electricity - and, therefore, they experience repulsion from the negatively charged radiations that emanate from the Earth, and which induce gravity effects.
But to her credit, she credits gravity effects to magnetic attraction, which allows the hollow planets theory to remain alive (I won't go into it now).
But she seems to be contradictory because, although she basically attributes gravity effects to electromagnetism, she denies the axiomatic repulsive ability. So she says one thing on one hand, but another thing is implicit. Her interpretation of the experiment causes confusion. The experiment shows attraction between opposite poles, which absolutely implies repulsion between like poles; but then she denies repulsion.
But she seems to know better. Therefore, I wonder if perhaps she wants to admit to the electromagnetic nature of gravitational attraction without alluding towards the secret of weightlessness. Once a person proves that gravity effects are induced by electromanetic attraction, then weightlessness by repulsion becomes self-evident. But she practically concluded in such a way as to deny repulsion.
And weightlessness - repulsion between two radiations of like charge and frequency - is a problem because we know what two-bit dictators and Arab jihadists would do with a secret like that. They would fabricate fast, long range missles that push against no inertia, or very little; the technology being simple once you know the secret.Then even a medium range missile could be rigged to fly to New York City.
By the way, this is the main reason I shy away from the physics-scientific side of the hollow earth theory because, in order to substantiate the existence of a hollow orb, you have to define gravity; and that could cause trouble for the whistle blower, too.
I don't want to be crude about that lady so I'll say, to her credit, she attributes gravitational attraction to electromagnetism, but then denies electromagnetism's equally obvious ability to repulse. She does this by simply imposing a non sequitur explanation to the experiment.
I'll say that the whole petroleum industry is dependant on the need to push against inertia; and I think it is obvious that the petroleum industry, as well as the U S government, have supressed antigravity research. The U S government had an antigravitics program that closed down in the late 1950s. It probably continued undercover.
I'll say something else not exactly in relation to her, but I don't think that anyone can overthrow the yoke of the NWO and the petroleum industry just by publishing artiicles in scientific journals and speaking at this scientific congress or that one. The whole NWO and U S government are predicated on the need for petroleum to push against inertia and to power automobiles; it is their yoke over the planet's population.
In the first place, that gravity effects are induced by electromagnetic radiations and antigravitics are dangerous science, lethal. Putting such technology in the mainstream of thought is like putting a gun in the hands of an unstable person; the population of our planet is largely unstable and dangerous. So why sould anyone bother trying to bring this to people's attention? I feel that all will be revealed when we are ready.
Please don't be offended by me.
I can't get into this in detail right now, but let me 100% assure you that Lori does not fake anything. She is a very sincere and kindhearted person. She's actually a great teacher (perhaps you'll need to see a number of her other videos I've previously referenced before you see this entirely) - she works very hard to understand things and then to convey her understanding...
I'll have to come back to this when I have some time, but yes, please do watch her other videos (start perhaps from around the 2 years ago mark) and let's have some discussion about this in detail when I have some time to really scrub through it.