It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jim marrs on monotomic particle

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:11 PM
Id like to open by firstly saying i respect jim marrs very much, mostly due to the way in which he conducts his investigation and reaches conclution.

putting that aside i have a most perculiar observation upon this video inverveiw at 9 minuites 7 seconds. I quote " the secrets of monotomic elements, ok these are single atom elements that are found in all heavy metals including gold silver platinum metals and erm they have found through a heating process can be reduced to a fine white powder" ok heres were it gets interesting, " this white powder when its placed on a weighing scale, the pan actually weighs less than it did when u put the powder in it which means it has anti gravity properties"

there is a list of things wrong with this state ment:

1. that reduction of weight and increase in mass does not mean the objects in question have anti gravity properties, or you could say helium and hydrogen have anti gravity properties in baloons. it simply means the object in question has a lower desity that the gass or what ever is surrounding it. If you placed a hydrogen ballon in a vacume, it would sink to the floor.

2. if the powder had anti gravity properties for what reason would it remain, at the bottom of the scale, and not simply fly away. if the scale alegedly weighed more before the white powder was placed in, this would indicate the white powder was creating a force pulling against gravity, if this is the case then what is holding the powder in place in order for it to pull against the pan, otherwise the pulling effect would be negated as the powder would simply pull itself to the pan. and have 0 net effect on the weight of the pan. in other words a sceintific analysis of the previous sentence, why wont the powder just fly off?

3. if the particles had anti gravity properties, then they must also have anti time properties, which would imediatly determine that humans, moving in the forwards direction of time, would have no possibility of observing them. gravities intensity determines the speed in which time is experianced for the observer, a man on the sun would observe time seemingly moving faster on the earth if he had a telescope. like wise if we observed a man who was running on the edge of a black hole, he would appear to be running in ultra slow motion. to actually suggest a particle has anti gravity properties suggests that the particle has broken the barrier and reversed upon itself, traveling backwards through time. which as previously stated, would simply disapear into the past, and we would no longer observe it, in other words the instant the powder with said properties was created it would disapear. without us ever having observed it in the first place

Edit to actually include link to video. ( truly rediculous mistake )

edit on 10-9-2010 by C1OUD because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 02:38 PM
I only know of the mono atomic Hydrogen discovered by GE worker and Nobel Chemistry
Medal winner Langmuir for something that the Relativists of Physics (energy in equals energy out)
like to cover up and should have gotten the Physics Medal.
It was 1993 or 96 that Mr. Lyne published his findings that the possible use of extra energy
out was indeed covered up and set to work on using the extra energy.


log in