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, October 16, 2005
Although I have suggested that there might be a more efficient manner by which to intercept signals originating from space, those suggestions appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
At the present time we are confined to the field remaining relative to our planet, yet such a consideration appears to escape the notice of those who wish to perpetuate the myth of uniformity, as they insist that a signal from the stars might arrive at any moment.
If we are seeking a signal from an extraterrestrial source we might be in for a very long wait, as it would seem less than intelligent to anticipate the arrival of a signal which could only be sent from within the extremely narrow window of one’s own unified field system. If we consider the dynamics of our unified field system, in relation to the non-simultaneous condition of Universe remaining relative to our planet Earth, we will realize that a conventional radio signal beamed into space would be limited to the confines of the field from which it was sent. This means that the signal is restricted to the condition of field remaining relative to our planet Earth.
In an equal manner a radio signal beamed into space from any planet, moon or extraterrestrial space craft would also be limited to the confines of the field from which it was sent, which means the signal is restricted to the condition of field remaining relative to the point of the signals origin.
Therefore the opportunity for such a signal to be received from any other location in space is so extremely remote that it is most unlikely to occur. Unless of course the signal originates from a space craft we ourselves have sent into space.
It is the dynamics of inter field communication which confound those attempting to access extraterrestrial radio signals, as the science and technology required for inter field contact is not presently considered applicable and or necessary.
The existing situation here on our planet Earth could be explained by a simple analogy; such as a person, possessing a telephone which is not connected to a telephone system, awaiting their first incoming call. They could wait for a very long time and still not receive a call. But if they were to connect their telephone to an existing communications system they would immediately have contact with anyone connected to the system.
It might sound very simple and elementary, but it is not simple, even though it might be elementary.
All the extraterrestrial communications we might wish to intercept are taking place beyond the limits of our unified field system, which means we are not paying attention.
Considering the size of Universe one could easily anticipate extraterrestrial signals originating from millions of different stations. But after years of listening we have yet to confirm contact with even one. So, it would appear rational to consider that there might be something lacking in respect to our equipment, as opposed to doubting the existence of an extraterrestrial source of communication.
If we are to have contact with extraterrestrial intelligence existing beyond the limits of our unified field system we must have the equipment allowing inter-field contact to occur, which would require the development of a field frequency modulator.
A field frequency modulator would allow us full spectrum access in relation to the billions of unified field systems existing themselves as non-simultaneous conditions of Universe.
In other words, we would immediately have access to millions of signals originating from extraterrestrial sources.
Every unified field system exists independent of every other system, yet they are all inter-connected and inter-related through a simultaneous condition of Universe remaining relative to every system. So it is through this simultaneous condition of Universe that we should be making contact, yet we fail to realize that such a thing might even be possible.
This means that simultaneous communication is not only possible but essential to the task, despite the fact that we perceive distant galaxies existing at distances described in terms corresponding to millions and billions of light years.
Inter-field communication might seem like an extremely radical idea, but it must be considered, as it is the only manner by which extraterrestrial contact is possible, in relation to a meaningful means of communication.
A field frequency modulator allows for the modulation of non-linear time field frequency acceleration, in that the rate of acceleration is different for every unified field system of Universe. And keeping in mind that the rate of acceleration is of a non-absolute value, we are talking about a very wide range of modulation.
What we are talking about here is getting plugged in to the Universe and extending our boundaries beyond the relative limitations of a single system.
Of course simultaneous communication would appear to defy the existing rules of science, but this is not the case at all, it’s just that we don’t understand the rules.
We are reluctant to accept the idea that all systems of Universe maintain a non-uniform relationship, to the point where the evidence of non-uniformity is restricted to a classified status. This means that evidence clearly defining the condition of non-uniformity is hidden and kept from public view, while the existence of such evidence is repeatedly denied.
Having seen such evidence myself I can assure you that it is far too real to be ignored.
The importance of non-uniformity is multiple in meaning, but for the purpose of this discussion it provides an understanding of our relative isolation within the field of planet Earth, as we are separated from the rest of Universe by a non-uniform boundary of field frequency. And regardless of how far or how fast we might be able to travel by means of our existing aerospace technology we are presently restricted to a single unified field system.
This means that we are cut off from any and all interplanetary or intergalactic communications of extraterrestrial origin that might be in progress, other than those associated with our own terrestrial based communications.
If SETI were to employ a field frequency modulator in their effort to intercept an extraterrestrial signal they would be rewarded by not one but millions of signals originating from space.
The question would no longer be whether we are alone, but how discerning we might wish to be in relation to those with whom we would now have contact.
This is not to say that we would merely have the technical capability to listen to random signals, but that we would have the ability to instantaneously participate in two way communications.
Of course it sounds like science fiction, because we are conditioned to respond in disbelief. And if you doubt that point, you only have to consider the limitations of conventional science in order to realize how restricted your view of Universe really is.
SETI is at least attempting to break the mold, but are restricted by a lack of science and technology. Anyone attempting to make extraterrestrial contact must have the right science and the right technological tools to do the job.
This means getting it right, getting it straight and putting it to work, without the restrictions of denial.
We need to get on with the work of building for the future, because there is going to be a future whether we like it or not. So let’s get past the pettiness and the greed and realize we do have a future.
Imagine taking an exam, at one of our modern universities, where one of the questions asked is whether the Earth is flat or round. And for this question you are given two choices; (A), the Earth is round or (B), the Earth is flat, where (B) was the correct answer.
On top of this you are asked to explain your answer in respect to the physical structure of the Earth, and should you choose to explain (A) you would automatically received a failing grade.
Of course this sounds outrageous, but no more outrageous than to be asked whether the speed of light is a constant or a variable, or to be asked to determine the equatorial radius of the Earth in meters.
The radius of the Earth is currently explained in terms of what I refer to as flat plane geometry, which involves straight and curved lines intersecting at critical points, where the dimensions are denoted by values corresponding to linear terms of reference, such as Meters and Kilometers etc.
Considering that the Earth is not flat, the speed of light is not constant and the Earth is dynamically structured, it would seem outrageous to consider defining the equatorial radius of the Earth to equal an exact number of meters.
So, the thinking goes like this; we will allow for the Earth to be described as round, because we can no longer hide this fact, but we still insist that the Earth can be accurately defined in terms of metric measure just as the value of (c) can be defined in terms of an exact metric value remaining relative to the linear duration of a single second.
Oh my, what have we done?
On the basis of this rationalization we can just as easily say that the Earth is flat, as it would appear that most of the graduates from this modern university don’t know the difference anyway.
Is this true? It would appear so, as none of them have questioned the legitimacy of the exercise or protested the absurdity of such claims.
The real question is this; how can the Earth be dynamically structured and still be defined in terms of metric measure, in that the metric measures correspond to static terms?
The Earth cannot be defined in terms of metric measure, as the dynamic nature of the Earth’s structure invalidates the static nature of the terms applied.
It is physically impossible to accurately measure the internal portion of the Earth in a manner corresponding to a metric value, as there is no absolute center from which to determine the radius.
But, someone will say that the measure of the Earth’s radius can be approximated, in that the approximate value is extremely close to the true value.
Sorry, it’s not even close. As time accelerates to the center of field the radius of the Earth is continuously increasing relative to the rate of expansion at the non-absolute perimeter of Universe, which is an accelerative rate of expansion.
This is a situation like the one where you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You either keep your cake or you eat it, but once you eat your cake you have no more cake to eat.
So, we say the world is round and not flat, but we will still allow the dimensions to correspond to a flat surface, despite the fact that we have already determined that the Earth is not flat.
But, I can measure the metric dimensions of a box, so why not the Earth?
The dimensions of the box remain relative to the condition of field, whereby the measurements allow for a convenient standard of value, but they do not themselves represent the dynamics of field. In other words, the dimensions of the box correspond to a purely abstract idea and serve no purpose in attempting to analyze the dynamics of field.
We have attempted to bore into the surface of the Earth and found the task a very real challenge, as the energy of field increases with depth. This means that the structural dynamics increase in magnitude with depth, whereby the boring of the rock becomes increasingly difficult with depth. At a certain depth underground it becomes impossible to bore any deeper, as the structural strength of the field affecting the dynamic structure of the rock exceeds that of the boring tool.
It is not that the rock gets harder or more brittle with depth, but that it gets stronger, as the strength of the field increases to the center of field.
Even within the Earth’s central core where the physical matter is in the form of a gaseous mixture rarefied to the center of field in the form of hydrogen, the strength of the field is of an immense magnitude.
This of course is very fortunate, as it allows the structure of the Earth to remain fairly stable for extended periods of time without any fear of the Earth being shattered like a fine china cup.
It also explains the shallow impact craters on the Moon, as the underlying dynamics of the Moon’s crust are of a greater magnitude than those of the Earth’s crust.
But should the dynamic energy of a planetary body be reduced to a certain critical point, the impact of a single meteor could easily shatter the planetary body in a manner similar to a fine china cup being smashed to bits by the impact of a sledgehammer.
The non-linear acceleration of field focused to the center of field imparts an accelerative increase to the value of time, which in turn alters the value of space and motion remaining relative to the system of reference.
Therefore, we might visualize a row of metric rules extending from the surface of the Earth to the center of the Earth’s core, where each meter rule becomes proportionally shorter toward the core. And those meter rules closest to the center of the core are so short that it is quite impossible to distinguish one from the other even with the aid of a magnifying glass.
Yet, on the basis of a dynamic field we want to believe that it should still be possible for each one meter rule to remain equal in length to every other one meter rule regardless of any changes occurring in respect to the condition of field.
Oh boy, are we in trouble. It would seem that there must be some hidden purpose in maintaining this outdated concept, which might be somewhat similar to the situation where a flat Earth prevented most people from venturing too far from home.
Does the linearization of time, space and motion not prevent us from realizing the accessibility of space, as we are convinced that the stars are too far removed from our geographical location to allow for interstellar transport? And if we cannot travel to the stars, would it not be equally impossible for people to travel from the stars?
Therefore it would seem reasonable to laugh at the suggestion that our Earth might be visited by travelers from other worlds. Such a thing deserves to be laughed at, as everyone knows that the constancy of light speed prevents such a thing from being seriously considered as a rational idea.
The trick is to allow people to believe that the knowledge of the world is an open book, whereby they will not even consider the possibility of the available knowledge being contrived for the purpose of control. And in order for such a trick to work you must also convince the majority of the people that it would be impossible to manipulate or hide scientific knowledge.
Nonetheless, scientific knowledge is manipulated and contrived for the purpose of control.
It is the responsibility of every scientist to question the validity of an unreasonable assumption of fact. But be that as it may, it is the orderly appearance of discord that compels so many to believe a lie.
If we are going to develop New Energy we should at least know what energy is, as at the present time we seem to be walking around in a fog.
Everything we call energy corresponds to a factor of resistance applied against the accelerative energy of field, which means that we are doing work by the most difficult means possible.
We seem to have this idea that if we shove, push or pull something we are applying energy to the situation, but we are not doing anything of the kind, as all forms of work involve a factor of resistance acting against the field in which the work is being done, whereby no energy is applied in our effort to perform work.
So, what difference does it make what you call it as long as the work gets done? It really doesn’t matter at all if you are satisfied with the existing situation, but if you want to find a simple method to access the free energy of Universe you should at least know what energy is.
To understand this situation we can use the example of a waterwheel, in relation to the flow of a stream providing the power required to turn the waterwheel.
Most of us would say that the water provided the necessary energy required, as the water, affected by gravity, pushes against the paddles of the wheel, whereby causing the wheel to turn.
But, the flow of the water applies no energy to the paddles, nor do the paddles convey energy to the wheel.
If we consider the flow of the water to be the result of gravity, we must also understand that the water itself is resistant to gravity, in that gravity is a condition of field. And in this respect it is the continuous acceleration of the underlying field symmetrically focused to the center of field which causes the water to flow downstream.
Therefore there is a dynamic relationship existing between the water and the field, where the energy of field is acceleratively increasing relative to the dynamic energy potential of the water. In this relationship the water is obliged to follow the path of least resistance, which is downstream, whereby every obstruction to the flow of the water applies resistance to the flow.
Therefore the water is resistant to the paddles of the wheel while the paddles are resistant to the flow of the water, which effectively slows the rate of flow.
This slowing of the water relative to the field in which the water is flowing causes an increase in the underlying energy potential of the water molecules.
But at the same time the resistance of the water against the paddles causes a decrease in the underlying energy of the paddles relative to an increase in the underlying energy of the water, as the flow of the water causes the paddles to move in the direction of the flow.
The water adds no energy to the wheel or to the paddles, but in fact causes the paddles and the wheel to suffer a loss of energy, which causes the wheel to turn.
The most amazing thing about this situation is that a turning wheel has less energy than one which remains relatively stationary. So a turning wheel is subject to a loss of energy and an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy, which explains why machinery wears out.
What is equally amazing is the fact that should the water molecules possess sufficient energy the water would not flow at all, whereby there would be insufficient resistance to turn the wheel.
So, it would appear that we have things somewhat confused and slightly back to front in relation of our existing perception of energy.
To take this one step further we can consider the use of a water driven turbine to produce electrical power, where the turning of the turbine adds no energy to the grid but in fact affects a net loss of energy and a proportional increase in resistance.
How this new perception of energy might be of assistance, is in helping us to realize the true nature and importance of an underlying force of energy, which we have yet to employ for the purpose of our industry.
Whether we use coal, wood or gas we are still faced with the same situation, as none of these resource based products supply us with any energy, as their continued usage results in a net loss of energy affecting our environment.
The same is true in relation to the use of uranium to power a nuclear reactor, as the process adds no energy. In fact we have yet to develop a method by which to employ energy for the purpose of our industry.
So where do we start?
We can begin by realizing that a stationary wheel has a higher energy potential than one which is turning, which gives us some clue as to the nature of an energy producing process.
So the quest for new energy is not simply a matter of building a better mouse trap, but involves the reinvention of the wheel.
I hope that some of you might have a little light turning on inside your head, as we are talking about a very significant jump from push and grind to high tech dynamics. And that is quite a jump.
A truly non-linear drive system capable of affecting an increase in the underlying energy potential of the system itself is not going to involve the turning of wheels, but will involve the focusing of wheels relative to a central axis.
I have watched with interest as the foil lifters, subject to 50,000 volts, are forced to defy gravity, in respect to the idea that these experimental projects might lead to a system allowing for the control of gravity.
It would appear that the inventors have not sufficiently considered the dynamics involved in the process of gravity control; otherwise they would have already realized that the often repeated demonstrations do not involve a process by which to actually control gravity.
Gravity control involves the controlled modulation of the underlying dynamics of the system itself, where the system represents a relative unified field system existing relative to the field in which it exists. And as such the system itself, in relation to the underlying dynamics of the system’s unified field, exists as a relative system of reference.
Therefore, the modulation of a gravity control system must occur within the context of the internal dynamics of the system itself, whereby affecting the inverse responses corresponding to the external dynamics.
Attempting to affect the internal dynamics from outside or from the external portion of field can only affect a temporary response, as it is only due to the external application of an electrical charge that the internal dynamics respond at all. Once the source of power is disconnected the field reverts to its original dynamic state, which terminates the demonstration.
The externally applied charge is of a resistant nature, which temporarily affects an internal increase in energy relative to the field in which the lifter is situated, which is somewhat similar to looking through a magnifying glass at an ant.
The glass lens modulates the field existing relative to the lens without altering the condition of the field itself, whereby the ant appears both larger and closer to the point of observation. But once the lens is removed the ant appears smaller and further removed from the point of observation.
This means that you can look at ants through a lens as often as you want and the results are going to be pretty much the same every time, as the focus of the lens is set relative to the field in which it is being employed. So in order to modulate the field existing relative to the angle of the lens, in a controlled manner, requires you to be able to control the focus of the lens.
In relation to a single lens and or a lifter you do not have the ability to modulate the condition of field remaining relative to the lifter in a controlled manner. Therefore, you must realize that, regardless of how many times you demonstrate the amazing lifter, the results are going to remain very predictable and somewhat repetitious.
In terms of gravity control, it is extremely doubtful that remote control is possible, as the system itself which provides for gravity control exists in a non-uniform relationship relative to the field in which it is being observed. In other words the condition of space, time and motion remaining relative to the gravity control system is different than the space, time and motion remaining relative to the observer on the ground or in the air.
The same is true for any apparatus which demonstrates an antigravity affect, as without a system of control you have not achieved gravity control.
In other words, simply applying an electrical charge or an electrostatic charge to a devise does not demonstrate gravity control nor represent the necessary proof of principle.
This is not to suggest that such experiments are without merit or importance, in attempting to understand the principles involved, because they most certainly are important. But we still have a long way to go and the need for research and development is critical to any further progress.
In fact the existing need for research and development is paramount to success, as without it, this is as far as it goes.
However, in terms of energy and resistance, it is of great importance that we not only realize that gravity control cannot be achieved by the induction of an electrical charge, but that gravity control will itself affect an electrical charge.
Therefore an electrical charge is achieved through a differential in the dynamic potential of the modulating system relative to the field in which it exists.
In other words, gravity control provides for more than just an efficient means of transport, as this same process is capable of providing the electrical power required for all our human industry.
To learn more read some of the early posts on this blog, or check out the Gravity Control Blog located at www.gravitycontrol.org or go to the gravity control forum. You will also find references and links to other interesting web sites at www.gravitycontrol.org
One of the most basic principles associated with our modern physics is the constancy of light speed, which is presently determined to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. And if this principle is ever found to be in error, it will profoundly effect on our perception of Universe.
So it is of some importance that we should consider the possibility that our understanding of light speed is not absolutely certain, but questionable at best.
Without making any biased assumptions we might question the validity of employing two completely different linear terms of reference to determine a third, in respect to the concept of attempting to combine oranges and apples in order to establish the perception of a banana.
On top of this we might question the validity of employing single unit measure in attempting to determine an exact value, as no single unit of measure corresponds to an absolute value. This means that our value of light speed is at best an estimate and an estimate is something less than an exact value.
Also, we assume that light speed is a linear function, in that light travels through space in a manner similar to a train in motion on a track or a plane in motion in the sky. If this is true, it requires the light to be in motion independent of the field in which it exists, which means that the speed of light is different than the motion of the field in which the light is moving.
This of course requires the motion of the light to function independent of the dynamics determining the condition of field, which makes one wonder what it is then that determines the speed of light?
If we consider all the various factors involved in determining the exact speed of light we are forced to conclude that the speed of light must remain static, as it is determined on the basis of two apparently static terms of reference, which includes the duration of one second and the length of one meter.
And on the basis of this we further conclude that it should be possible to determine the approximate age and size of Universe.
Oh my goodness, this is a strange state of affairs, as we have gone to great lengths to make such an evaluation seem completely rational and somewhat logical, without considering the possibility that such an idea is less than rational and even less than logical.
Considering we now know that the Universe exists in a dynamic state and is no longer considered static, why on Earth would we persist in attempting to maintain the correctness of an outdated concept?
Would we not consider that the apparent motion of light must also be dynamic and as such must therefore correspond to the dynamic condition of field?
This situation would cause us to realize that the second and the meter could hardly be considered static either, as both of these standards must fluctuate with the condition of field, whereby the speed of light could hardly remain static or even constant over time.
Of course someone could suggest that this is impossible, but the experimental evidence says that it is possible and a proven fact.
How else could you explain the Frozen Light Experiment, where a light pulse is slowed to a full stop and made to vanish only to reappear and regain its original speed?
We are not talking trains and planes here, as you can bring a train to a full stop, but just try making it vanish, reappear and continue under its own steam down the track.
Now we are into the realm of non-linear dynamics without even realizing that we were from the start, as the apparent linear motion of light is in fact due to the dynamic non-linear nature of the field in which it exists, otherwise the light would not be in motion at all.
We have concocted a great story on the basis of some crude assumptions that appear to correspond to linear geometry, but linear geometry was never intended to describe the dimensions of space.
So, when we consider the size and age of Universe we must equally consider the terms of reference employed, as we can easily fool ourselves without due consideration and vigilance.
In making reference to billions of light years we are assuming a great deal, as we assume it might be possible to determine the duration of a light year and or the length of a light year, when in fact we are still incapable of determining the exact speed of light other than as a hypothetical exercise involving static terms of reference which are themselves nothing more or less than an abstract invention.
Consequently no meaningful information can be derived from this exercise, as it has no practical application other than to limit our understanding of Universe.
If we consider the Universe in terms of a dynamic non-simultaneous condition remaining relative to the system of reference, we will realize that our observation of distant galaxies, as seen through the Hubble, gives us a clue to the nature of Universe.
In order to take a photograph of an extremely distant galaxy requires that time should be slowed in the direction of our observation and if time is slowed in the direction of our observation it would be impossible for the speed of light to remain constant over the course of billions of years.
If time is isometrically slowed in the direction of deep space and is symmetrically accelerated in the direction of the observer, in relation to a dynamic condition, it would appear the distance is somewhat less than what we presently assume.
It is obvious that the light from a distant galaxy is not in linear motion; otherwise we would be instantly blinded by the light. And if the light is not in linear motion our perception of Universe is equally blinded by our determination to maintain our existing assumptions.
So how big is the Universe and how old is it?
The Universe is a dynamic condition of space, time and motion which remains relative to our planet Earth, so the duration of Universe and the size of Universe cannot be determined on the basis of a linear assessment.
One can only photograph a distant galaxy in the context of the non-absolute present moment; consequently the subject of the photograph, which is a distant galaxy, must exist in the same non-absolute moment in which the photograph is taken.
This would indicate that the distance between the observer and the distant galaxy is not a linear expanse of space, which can be measured in terms of meters and or seconds, but corresponds to a differential in field frequency and or a differential in the dynamic (energy) potential remaining relative to the system of reference.
Therefore the lens of the Hubble has modulated the differential of the field remaining relative to its curvature, whereby the distant galaxy has been etched into the photographic medium by means of field frequency distortion corresponding to a potential of resistance associated with a differential in dynamic potential.
The only space existing between the Earth and the distant galaxy corresponds to a differential in dynamic potential and has nothing whatever to do with the linear speed of light, as the space itself is a condition of field which remains relative to the system of reference.
There are no light years or astronomical units per say, there is only a differential in dynamic potential, whereby the field of frequency accelerates in the direction of the Earth and isometrically decelerates into space.
The condition of space is determined by the underlying dynamics of field remaining relative to the system of reference. So as the relative differential in dynamic potential increases so does the Universe continue to expand.
Consequently, if the relative differential in dynamic potential were decreasing the Universe would continue to contract, but in this respect the factor of time would not be reversed, merely slowed toward the system of reference and isometrically accelerated into space. 5
From this we can conclude that the speed of light is a field condition, associated with every system of reference, whereby the speed of light is different for every system of reference and should be considered a relative variable remaining relative to the system of reference.
Our existing concept of light speed, as a constant, defies rational logic and limits our human potential to comprehend the nature of Universe.