How many meters?

How Many Meters

I was reading a science magazine about the amazing sights seen through the Hubble and noticed a comment regarding some of the pictures being events having occurred billions of years ago. My immediate response was to say, really, you took a picture of something that happened billions of years ago, what a cool trick.

Now, most people take billions of light years at face value, in that a distant galaxy is in fact situated billions of light years from the Hubble, but is it?

I don't believe in light years, in fact I insist that light is not even in linear motion and if light is not moving like a train or a plane how could it travel all the way from the far reaches of space? The short answer is that it doesn't.

What you see is what you get and that's it, as there are no billions of light years to even consider.

But on the forum Jim brought up an interesting point about the speed of gravity versus light speed, in respect to the question of whether gravity travels faster than light speed, as when the gravity of the sun is checked out, the sun is situated 8 min. ahead of where we see it located, which is thought to be due to the idea that the image of the sun takes 8 min. to reach us traveling at the speed of light, whereas the speed of gravity might be considered instantaneous or faster than the speed of light.

In that time slows isometrically from the center of the Earth and accelerates symmetrically to the center of the Earth, there is a difference between the distance to the sun from the Earth and the distance from the sun to the Earth, as the two are not the same at all. The shorter distance is from the sun to the Earth, with the Earth as the system of reference.

But if you were to reverse the process whereby it might be possible to have the sun as your system of reference, the shorter distance would be from the Earth to the sun.

Consequently there is a differential in dynamic potential existing between the Earth and the sun, with the sun having the higher dynamic potential, which maintains the space between them and their relative motion to each other.

In this respect the sun is moving away from the Earth faster than the Earth is moving away from the sun, while at the same time the sun is expanding faster than the Earth, so we notice very little difference in the size of the sun.

Like light, gravity doesn't move linearly through space, as gravity is a dynamic condition of field which is decreasing in proportion to the acceleration of field.

Gravity decreases in proportion to the square of the distance as does light diminish from it's source in the same manner.

So the differential between the Earth and the sun is roughly 8 min., relative to the Earth as our system of reference, which is continuously increasing.
But when we measure the gravity of the sun, we are measuring the gravity of the sun and not a differential in dynamic potential, so there is no differential to measure.

We must realize that the condition of the sun affects the suns field, as a unified field of frequency, which means the continuous acceleration of the sun's field affects an instantaneous increase in the expansion of Universe remaining relative to the sun, in the same manner as the condition of the Earth's field, as a unified field of frequency, which means that the continuous acceleration of the Earth's field affects an instantaneous increase in the expansion of Universe remaining relative to the Earth. But both conditions and both rates of expansion are different.

To clear up any misunderstanding about light traveling from the depths of space we can consider the basic concept of vision, in that it is assumed that light enters the eye. Whoa, would that be painful or what, as you'd be blinded in the process.

Light does not enter the eye, as the eye is a field frequency receptor which is intended to provide us with sight adequate to our survival. So vision is a lot like memory, in that both the field of vision and the content of memory exist as field frequency.

So it does not require light to be in linear motion to be received by the eye, just as memory is not in linear motion, whereby we can remember a memory as often as we wish for many years. But we have this crazy idea that memory is embedded in the fabric of our brains, but just how that works no one is quite sure. And of course memory is not trapped in our brain, otherwise we would run out of storage space and require an auxiliary brain.

So when we look into deep space we see what exists relative to the Earth as our system of reference. And even in space, despite our limited understanding of space, we remain within the field of the Earth.

A distant galaxy seen through the Hubble exists relative to our Earth at the present time and does not exist billions of years ago, as it exists in the present relative to the Earth as it is. The billions of years are pure fiction, they don't exist.

The lens of the Hubble modulates the condition of space relative to the Earth, which gives us these fantastic pictures of distant galaxies, but it does not involve billions of light years. What it does involve is a differential in dynamic potential remaining relative to our planet Earth, which is not the same thing at all.

You can't measure space with a meter rule or a yard stick, as the meter rule and the yard stick get longer as you move deeper into space, just as the second becomes longer as you move deeper into space, which means you wont reach your distant galaxy.

But coming the other way the meter rule gets shorter and the second gets shorter, which makes the return trip shorter than the out bound voyage, which is why the Earth looks so big from the moon. The two distances are not the same, as the distance from the Earth to the moon is longer and the distance from the moon to the Earth is shorter relative to the field of the Earth.

So the distance involved is a differential in dynamic potential and has nothing to do with meter rules or yard sticks, nor does it have anything to do with the speed of light or light years.

To attempt to defend the idea of light speed being constant requires some fictional information to be injected, as the speed of light is a relative variable at best.

The apparent speed of light is a condition of the field in which the light is perceived to be in linear motion, but it is not the light which is in motion as it is the field itself which is accelerating, but not going anywhere other than expanding or contracting.

The linear motion of a planet, moon or star is a very serious occurrence as this really upsets the harmony of Universe. In fact the linear motion of the Earth in any direction would bring about global disaster.

So while we're at it why don't we consider the dynamic differential between the sun and Mars, as this differential suggests that Mars should be closer to the sun. This means that Mars has at some time in the past been displaced from it's original orbit, which means there is a very real potential for further restructuring of the solar field.

Time is different for every system of Universe, of course it is, but there is no known means by which to determine the linear dimensions of Universe, despite what anyone might like to believe.

There is a different non-simultaneous condition of Universe remaining relative to every system of Universe, each of which is expanding or contracting at a different rate. And each and every one of these conditions is equally valid in terms of the real deal, as the physical condition of Universe is a dynamic condition remaining relative to the system of reference.

This allows both past and future conditions of Universe to exist simultaneously and remain relative to the non-simultaneous condition of Universe remaining relative to the system of reference, whereby there are an infinite number of conditions existing simultaneously. Therefore no one condition is any more real than another, as they are all equally real.

I suppose the people who think they can take pictures of events having occurred billions of years ago are the same people who think rockets are going to get us to the stars. Yet if you asked these same people if the condition of the moon existing relative to the Earth was a historical condition of the moon or a future condition of the moon, they would say neither one. They would say that the condition of the moon was contemporary with that of the Earth.

Unfortunately they would be wrong, as the existing condition of the moon, which remains relative to the Earth, is a historic condition of the moon existing relative to the present condition of the Earth. Yet the moon is our closest neighbor.

Time is not the result of space and motion, but space and motion are the result of time, in relation to a non-linear evaluation of time field frequency acceleration.
And meter rules have nothing to do with it, nor does the linear speed of light.

Why We Need Gravity Control

For some time I have been bothered by the confusion surrounding the apparent slowing of NASA's Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes, which are presently traveling in deep space billions of kilometers from Earth.

Many reasons have been put forward in attempting to explain the slowing of these space craft, but nothing which has yet been accepted as conclusive. Yet, it would seem there is a very serious lesson to be learned from Pioneer 10 and 11.

You can't get there from here! Well, at least it appears that way, but one thing is for certain, you can't get there this way, which is by means of linear transit.

As NASA knows little or nothing about the underlying dynamics of space, it would seem natural that they would spend tens of millions of dollars in attempting to solve a problem and come up with nothing to show for it, other than to rule out some of the apparent possibilities.

When we apply the underlying dynamics of (ntffa), about which there is plenty of information on this blog, we find that time slows isometrically from the center of the Earth's core to the outer boundary of Universe.

So let's consider these underlying dynamics in relation to the slowing of Pioneer 10 & 11.

For starters NASA is applying metric measure to the problem, which is a linear system. Unfortunately Universe is not linear, especially space.

The idea is that these two space craft might eventually reach the nearest stars, but here is the problem. They are traveling in an expanding field which remains relative to our planet Earth, which means that for each meter they advance the next meter is a little bit longer than the last. So the distance is increasing as they proceed, whereby they are not slowing down at all, it's just that space is expanding. Space is being stretched in the direction of travel, which is away from the Earth. So the apparent progress of Pioneer 10 & 11 is slowed.

At the same time, time itself relative to our Earth is isometrically slowing down, so the duration of time required to make the journey to the stars is increasing as the two craft move further away from the Earth.

NASA appears to be at a loss in relation to their understanding of space, as you cannot calculate the vastness of space by employing metric measure, as a meter rule corresponds to a static term of measure and or a linear term of reference, while space is a dynamic condition which remains relative to the system of reference. And in relation to Pioneer 10 & 11 the system of reference is planet Earth.

So, space exists as a condition of field and rather than attempting to modulate the condition of field NASA is attempting to physically cross deep space and access the stars by means of a push cart type craft, which simply wont do the job.

This is why comets keep coming back, as they reach a point where the underlying dynamics force them to return. Their progress finally comes to a virtual halt and the field dynamics cause the comet to follow the path of least resistance, which is back towards the sun.

Gravity really doesn't play a role in this at all, as it is the underlying field dynamics determining the direction in which the path of least resistance runs.

It is commonly assumed that the gravity of the sun draws a comet toward it, but the gravity of the sun is far too weak to be effective in this manner, but nonetheless the field dynamics of the sun are extremely high, in terms of (ntffa). So, comets which return to the sun are somehow associated with the sun's dynamics, as they exist relative to the field of the sun and not the field of the Earth.

From this we can determine that Pioneer 10 or 11 will not do the job intended, as they will eventually be brought to a virtual halt and begin a return trip to Earth, as these two space craft exist relative to the field of the Earth and not the field of the sun. Surprise, surprise NASA!

Consequently they will make the return trip, circle the Earth and be hurled back into space or burn up in the Earth's atmosphere.

How long it will be before these two space craft start their return trip is an unknown at this time, but they will eventually do so, or break up trying.

The basic idea that we can measure the vastness of space in terms of light years or any other linear term is a fallacy, it's pure nonsense.

You cannot apply linear terms to a dynamic system, you can only employ such terms on a very limited scale, such as measuring the distance from the bedroom to the kitchen or the distance from one town to another, but you cannot employ linear terms to measure space as space does not conform to such terms.

So how big is the Universe? It is no bigger than the non-absolute differential in (ntffa) remaining relative to the system of reference, which is less than one and more than zero. You can say the Universe is vast, but you cannot say how big it is in relation to the concept of light years.

If space keeps expanding with distance, the relative value of the linear terms employed increases as you go further into space, which means it would be impossible to get very far in relation to the vastness of space. The dynamics of space will simply overwhelm your effort and send you home.

The only way to access the far reaches of space is to modulate the underlying dynamics of field, which is commonly referred to as gravity control, electrogravitics or anti-gravity etc. But gravity control itself is only a start, as it is the modulation of the underlying field dynamics which is required. In other words, it is the total dynamics of field which must be modulated in a controlled manner.

The craft itself must exist as a unified field of frequency, whereby the Universe exists relative to the craft itself, which is something completely different from anything we have previously attempted. The controlled modulation of the underlying field dynamics allows one to modulate the condition of Universe remaining relative to the craft, which allows one to overcome the obstacles which presently frustrate our efforts.

If we are to make it to the stars, where we can actually access Earth like planets, which undoubtedly exist, we must get off the pot and get on with it. Fooling around with outdated and inadequate concepts is not progressive or rational. We have to get passed the rockets and get serious.

Gravity control is what this blog is all about and it's a start in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work to be done. No one person or even a small group of people can make this happen, as it is going to take a major effort to get it off the ground. It's going to take cooperation and commitment to make it happen, but it can happen and of course it will, but when? If not now, when?

It's as much about waking to a new day as anything could be and this is the dawn and a new day is breaking, so wake up you sleepy heads and join us in a very exciting adventure.