Rapid destruction of electrons equals high flow of current (UFO tech explained)

If you have a metal pole then it is holding a certain amount of electrons and will pull in new ones to saturate itself if it has too few.

So if you were to continuously destroy all the electrons in one end of this pole then the other end would always suck in new electrons.

Hence you have a large flow of current (that's the word used to describe the movement of electrons) in the middle of this pole which can be used to power electronic devices.

Also the destruction of the electrons will cause a massive amount of radiation (high powered electromagnetic wave emission) which could possibly radiate in the same frequency as visible light and x-rays as well.

So in a craft which is using these technologies you have a situation where electrons are pulled out of the surrounding air and objects to saturate the object which has too few (as described above). Together with the risk of radiation burns and bright light.

Hence car engines and other electronic devices will stop working properly when too close since the current flow in those devices are interfered with.

We have proof of technology like this being used because of the countless cases of cars that stop working together with high levels of radiation sometimes causing burns and sickness in the witnesses. Just check out the "Levelland UFO case" and you will see that this is the truth.

Speculation:

Myself I have always questioned the mainstream scientific theories and research because I think that we might on purpose be fed a lot of misinformation, basically to keep us in the dark. To keep us from properly understanding gravity and mass, etc.

I've always theorized that gravity can be explained with electrons alone and that the electrons and their configuration is what gives mass to objects.

If you play along with this, then what will happen if you suck out most of the electrons from an object? It will have a negligible amount of mass then and will not be attracted towards "gravity" nor have any inertia (hence could change direction rapidly without being damaged).

Maybe a lack of electrons could even keep objects from interfering with electromagnetic waves (light) hence go invisible.

Something to think about is it not?

Finally a video:
www.dailymotion.com...

a reply to: ParanormalGuy


How do you destroy an electron?

How do you destroy an electron?

I don't have the tech or know how to do this.

But I imagine it will be like destroying a soap bubble where possibly a statically held electromagnetic wave is then released.

a reply to: ParanormalGuy


They are an elementary particle and cannot be destroyed.

They are an elementary particle and cannot be destroyed.

You are wrong, read this:
www.quora.com...

a reply to: ParanormalGuy


Your Original Post is not discussing conversion into photons, which is part of the conservation of energy, you said 'destruction'. If that is what you meant you should have been clearer.

There's also not a clear consensus on the source you linked.

Your Original Post is not discussing conversion into photons, which is part of the conservation of energy, you said 'destruction'. If that is what you meant you should have been clearer.

From my post:

Also the destruction of the electrons will cause a massive amount of radiation (high powered electromagnetic wave emission) which could possibly radiate in the same frequency as visible light and x-rays as well.

I did describe that, did you even read my post?

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy
I did describe that, did you even read my post?

Your second quote is not clear, you're mentioning this alien raditation as radiating in the visible spectrum 'like light'. If something radiates in the visible spectrum it is light.

Your second quote is not clear, you're mentioning this alien raditation as radiating in the visible spectrum 'like light'. If something radiates in the visible spectrum it is light.

Are photons light?

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy
If you have a metal pole then it is holding a certain amount of electrons and will pull in new ones to saturate itself if it has too few.

So if you were to continuously destroy all the electrons in one end of this pole then the other end would always suck in new electrons.

Hence you have a large flow of current (that's the word used to describe the movement of electrons) in the middle of this pole which can be used to power electronic devices.

Also the destruction of the electrons will cause a massive amount of radiation (high powered electromagnetic wave emission) which could possibly radiate in the same frequency as visible light and x-rays as well.

So in a craft which is using these technologies you have a situation where electrons are pulled out of the surrounding air and objects to saturate the object which has too few (as described above). Together with the risk of radiation burns and bright light.

Hence car engines and other electronic devices will stop working properly when too close since the current flow in those devices are interfered with.

We have proof of technology like this being used because of the countless cases of cars that stop working together with high levels of radiation sometimes causing burns and sickness in the witnesses. Just check out the "Levelland UFO case" and you will see that this is the truth.

Speculation:

Myself I have always questioned the mainstream scientific theories and research because I think that we might on purpose be fed a lot of misinformation, basically to keep us in the dark. To keep us from properly understanding gravity and mass, etc.

I've always theorized that gravity can be explained with electrons alone and that the electrons and their configuration is what gives mass to objects.

If you play along with this, then what will happen if you suck out most of the electrons from an object? It will have a negligible amount of mass then and will not be attracted towards "gravity" nor have any inertia (hence could change direction rapidly without being damaged).

Maybe a lack of electrons could even keep objects from interfering with electromagnetic waves (light) hence go invisible.

Something to think about is it not?

Finally a video:
www.dailymotion.com...

See Wilbert Smith and the caudaceus coil.

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

Are photons light?

Can something radiate in the visible spectrum like light without being light?

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

Do you understand the amount of power required to destroy electrons? It would require CERN like portions, Which could easily be used to sustain flight.


First off, stories about cars and electronics dying, is not proof of concept, they are just stories.

Second, do you have any formal traing in electrical engineering? Or any college credits in a scientific field?

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

Are you saying that atoms that lose their electrons lose their mass?
Can you point to any evidence thar this is the case?
Lonely neutrons and protons still have mass as far as I know.

Do you understand the amount of power required to destroy electrons? It would require CERN like portions, Which could easily be used to sustain flight.

First off, stories about cars and electronics dying, is not proof of concept, they are just stories.

Second, do you have any formal training in electrical engineering? Or any college credits in a scientific field?

1. I'm not sure about the power needed, current methods probably require CERN like methods indeed, future methods might not.

2. "they are just stories"
No, they are real events that happened and has been documented several times. I will not provide you with documentation though.

3. "do you have any formal training in electrical engineering"
No, and I like to think alternate ways than what is being teached anyway, hence most people who subscribe to the current scientific understanding will not be open to my alternate ways of understanding physics.

Are you saying that atoms that lose their electrons lose their mass?
Can you point to any evidence thar this is the case?
Lonely neutrons and protons still have mass as far as I know.

I am not saying that they do, I am speculating that they do loose most of it.
No, I can not point to any evidence.

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

If you take a bucket of water out of a large lake, does it neccessarily mean that the lake must automatically 'take in' more water?

Nope.

The potential of a large lake is not noticeably changed by the removal of a bucketof water.

All atoms have electrons in their outer shell/s.

In one gram of Hydrogen, for example, there is 602,214,090,000,000,000,000,000 atoms, and each atom has an electron.

That's quite a 'pool' of electrons.

In principle and electron can be converted into the gamma ray photon that comprises it.
This is one half of the energy from electron-positron annihilation.

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

Well, since we are just speculating here, why don’t we just ride magical dragons to the moon? I mean, I can’t prove magical dragons exist or that they can get us to the moon, but does that make it any less of a a viable option Then what you are proposing?

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

They are just stories until they are demonstrated to be otherwise. That’s how science works. And what you were talking about is clearly in the realm of science.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You have to knock it (electrons) free from the orbit around its nucleus (think CERN) - this has been done and it also has resulted into mini black holes .... no links for ya at the moment but the science has been done.

You have to knock it (electrons) free from the orbit around its nucleus (think CERN) - this has been done and it also has resulted into mini black holes

An ion is a mini black hole? Is this a Mandela thing?