Gravity Control Idealism

Gravity Control Idealism attempts to understand the underlyiing dynamics of Universe, whereby it might be possible to control gravity and electromagnetism in a manner allowing for the needs of our planet.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

The Electrical Connection

An electric potential is the product of resistance, in relation to a relative differential in the underlying energy of any system.

In our modern world we employ the turning of turbines to produce an electrical potential. And in order to turn the turbines we employ water, gas, coal or nuclear power, believing each of them capable of providing the necessary energy.

An understanding of this situation is imperative in relation to achieving gravity control, as none of these provide a source of energy. But what they do provide is a potential of resistance, in that we have mistakenly labeled or incorrectly named a potential of resistance as a potential of energy.

This error originated with Einstein's concept of a static Universe, in that he assumed an increase in linear velocity produced a proportional increase in energy, but unfortunately an increase in linear velocity does not produce an increase in energy, but affects a decrease in energy.

It should be considered impossible that an increase in velocity should be capable of producing both an increase in resistance to a further increase in velocity and a proportional increase in energy, as energy and resistance must be considered to be opposites in relation to an underlying dynamic force.

This incidentally involves a question of perception, in that we have not previously considered the existence of an underlying dynamic force to be present, which has caused problems to arise.

The most obvious of which manifests itself in our attempts to determine the most efficient method by which to provide for an economical source of energy without knowing exactly what energy is, which makes the job extremely difficult.

Take the idea of a river providing the energy needed to drive a turbine, when in fact the river or the water of the river provides no energy to the process. Water, in relation to the flow of water following the course of a river, follows the path of least resistance, in that the water is itself resistant to anything in it's path. But the water itself provides no energy to anything in it's path as it has no energy to spare regardless of the speed at which it flows.

It is the underlying dynamic force of the accelerating field in which the water exists which provides the energy by which the water is capable of flowing, but does not impart a potential of energy directly to the water.

As the water flows from high ground to low, the water itself loses energy relative to the underlying force of the field in which it is flowing. In other words, as a river flows from a mountain to the sea it follows the path of least resistance as supplied by the underlying field of frequency which is continuously accelerating symmetrically to the center of the Earth, while the river itself loses energy as it flows.

If this were not the case the river would not flow, but would remain frozen, which is exactly what happens when a river freezes in winter. When the temperature of the water drops to freezing the energy of the water is increased by the process of freezing to a point proportional to the field in which it exists, which causes the water to remain stationary.

As simple as this observation might appear it is not at all obvious unless the existence of an underlying force is taken into consideration.

The mere action of water flowing provides an electrical potential, due to the resistant nature of the water flowing relative to the field in which it exists. So the faster the water flows the more resistance is associated with it's flow, which allows water to drive a turbine, which is proportionally resistant to the flow of the water. And due to the turning of the turbine relative to the field in which it exists the turbine produces a measurable increase in resistance in proportion to the speed at which it turns.

This means that the turning turbine is itself losing energy relative to the field in which it exists while increasing it's outflow of resistance relative to the field in which it exists, which is communicated in terms of an electrical charge.

Therefore the process involved in producing an electrical charge is somewhat simplified, as all that is required is a differential in the underlying energy potential at any point within the field.

In other words we don't need water, gas, coal or a nuclear reactor to produce electricity, as all we require is a method by which to modulate a differential in field frequency acceleration relative to the field in which we exist.

And as electromagnetism and gravity are not themselves forces of any kind, but merely dynamic responses to the underlying force, it should not be too difficult to modulate the underlying field sufficiently to moderate both gravity and electromagnetism by means of a simple field frequency modulator.

The resistant nature of an electrical charge should appear obvious to any electrical engineer, in that an electrical charge is the product of resistance and as such could hardly be considered itself to represent a source of energy.

If we mean that energy is something which does work, we are deliberately confusing ourselves and making our quest for new energy systems extremely difficult.

If energy were a resistant force, we would quickly run out of energy, as it would be impossible to sustain the dynamic integrity of physical structure on the basis of a resistant force of energy. In other words, without the continuous acceleration of the underlying force, the integrity of physical structure would fail. Therefore the underlying force of energy must be non-resistant in relation to an increase in energy affecting a decrease in resistance to a further increase in energy.

It is perhaps noteworthy to mention that both Special and General Relativity were formulated on the bases of a static condition, in that Einstein, at the time, believed the condition of Universe to be static.

And if we are to determine an efficient method by which to produce electricity we must embrace the dynamic condition of Universe and make the appropriate corrections, as it is counterproductive to continue on in an erroneous manner.

From this we should realize that gravity control is not simply a matter of getting a physical mass to levitate upon command, but equally allows for a sustainable source of electricity without any further consumption of our natural resources and or any further polluting of our environment.

So, the quest for gravity control represents a significant challenge to our modern world.

2 Comments:

At 2:32 PM, Blogger Sitarow said...

Quote

"From this we should realize that gravity control is not simply a matter of getting a physical mass to levitate upon command, but equally allows for a sustainable source of electricity without any further consumption of our natural resources and or any further polluting of our environment."

End Quote


I often found myself wondering what the true achievement is when I hear claims of “successful” levitation experiments. They normally follow with statements of observed results proportional to the "energy" provided from an external source.

I always question the source and amount of this "energy" along with its "frequency".

Ultimately it is imperative to fully understand all aspects of these resulting observations in our environment such as gravity, electromagnetic, strong & week forces. In turn we can utilize the energy already present in the interaction of these particles.

An example I refer to is the popular belief that the Dinosaurs grew extinct due to climate changes that no longer provided a habitable environment that resulted after an impact of a meteoroid. The reasoning for this belief remains rather ambiguous at best.

If those involved in the process of said ideas were privy to today’s research on the sun and its effects on our climate, what would they conclude? Would it not be reasonable to say if the causes that create such devastation were due to forces as “gravity”, what could be the outside influence for such a drastic change?

Perhaps it was not due to the impact of a meteoroid but rather the infusion of energy in the form of matter and particles from comet or other heavenly body passing by our solar system. Could such an object have excess mass and energy that could potentially tip the balance introducing outside energy into our solar system? This increase output of particles from the sun translating into additional activity resulting in an increase introduction of “resistant” energy such as “heat, motion, and pressure” to our area of space. That ultimately these additional particles now bombarding our earth resulting in interacts with the atmosphere that “modify” existing matter properties forcing them into a new balanced state by the release of other particles and “potentially” altering their initial state in the process. As these particles propagate down the layers of matter it infuses matter with energy and become smaller and move slower as they propagate to ocean level.

This in turn changed what we know as the present day force of gravity at ocean level or a shift in what was at the time the balance point. Forcing the bioorganic creatures of the time to break down due to added particle activity bombarding their structure? In effect killing off large creatures and plants unable to “adjust” and those others able to reproduce continued with success to exist. These effects in environmental change would be significant not only to the creatures but also the surface because of volcanic activities from the added pressure to the earth. The alteration of the earth’s magnetic field results because of the change in motion of the oceans and orbits of the moon and so on. “Disease” would not be far off possibility. Realize that the effect of gravity becomes negligible the deeper you go into the earth. Pressure becomes more of a concern. And these pressures contribute to the altered “balance” at ocean level. Not only from the particles from above but also from within the earth. As pressure moves particles to heat up and then breakdown and slowly release other types of particles that eventually make their way up to the surface.

Perhaps the "GIANTS" could not continue because of the "climate" change in resulting gravity due to the added friction that also modified our magnetic field because of the additional particle activity and their interaction with matter that could potentially change structures that once were in harmony with the previous environment.

But what of the force of gravity and resulting forces due to the accepted belief that matter attracts matter? Or is it feasible to assume that because of the “flow” of these particles perhaps do to variations of energy pockets and voids that dynamically interact and ultimately “push” their way along at a “balanced” rate leaving denser and slower moving objects at their mercy?

~ Sitarow

 
At 11:16 AM, Anonymous comprar puertas metalicas said...

So, I don't actually suppose this may have success.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Tracking