Tree Power

A tree is an amazing piece of work, as a tree is designed to modulate its internal dynamics relative to the field in which it is situated.

In this respect the modulation of the internal dynamics affects both a gravitational response and an electromagnetic response in relation to the underlying force of energy associated with the tree’s physical structure.

It is commonly thought that the electrical charge which can be extracted from a tree results from an electrochemical reaction, despite the fact that during the winter months when the tree is relatively dormant and or inactive and the leaves are gone from its branches, the extractible voltage increases by 50%.

At the present time the underlying force is not considered or even acknowledged in this respect, nor is the inverse relationship of internal and external dynamics.  In fact it is not presently accepted or acknowledged that a distinct difference between internal and external dynamics even exists, as the internal dynamics are considered to be nothing more than an extension of the external dynamics.

If we could grasp the idea of an underlying force of energy affecting the inverse relationship of internal and external dynamics we might begin to realize just how much we have been missing.

If we took the basic design of a tree and applied the underlying force we could easily build a modular apparatus capable of providing us with electrical power without the consumption of a fuel.

A tree provides a differential in dynamic potential between the internal dynamics of the tree and the field in which the tree exists.  And as the field in which the tree exists is itself electrically charged there is a differential in charge between the internal structure of the tree and the external field. This provides a net differential in charge, which can be adapted to provide for useable electrical power.

This is aside from the fact that the tree also affects a differential in gravity allowing for the raising and lowering of fluids up and down the xylem.

Of course this defies accepted physics, but so do a lot of things which remain without a reasonable explanation.
Much is inferred and much more is assumed, but a tree does provide a proof of principle in relation to an underlying force determining the form and function of all physical structure.

Many people around the world have stuck a piece of copper pipe in the ground, driven a nail into a tree and applied a common electrical meter to detect a flow of electrical current.  But most of those people insist this must be an electrochemical effect, yet there is no evidence to demonstrate or support this idea anymore than there is to demonstrate the mechanics thought to allow for the lifting and lowering of fluid through the xylem.

The tree is an inverted version of Unity, but regardless of which way up the apparatus is positioned you still get a dynamic response in the form of both a gravitational and an electromagnetic response.

The simplicity of this system is overwhelming, no question about that, but such simplicity can also be considered to represent a lack of understanding in relation to the complexities of our modern science.

A tree focuses the underlying force of energy inherent to its form and function, in terms of a continuance of field structure associated with the form and function of a tree.

The idea of a continuance of field structure comes from asking why the physical structure of universe does not simply fold on itself, despite the fact that it does not.

Without an underlying force allowing for the continuance of field structure the physical structure of universe would fold on itself, but this problem can be easily ignored or simply dismissed due to the fact that physical structure does not fold on itself.  Yet there is no meaningful answer to the question without the inclusion of the underlying force.

So here we have a system capable of providing us with all the energy we could possibly use and desperately need, yet for the most part we refuse to acknowledge the possibility.

Such an attitude seems less than rational if we are not willing to even consider the possibility.  Especially in light of the fact that we still remain unsure what gravity or electricity actually are.  On top of this we do not know exactly what energy is either, which further compounds the problem.

It is time to put the biased views aside and consider the possibility of a new approach to long standing problems and misunderstandings, as the benefits far outweigh the option of continuing as we have.

We are destroying our environment without benefit or merit to anyone simply for the sake of maintaining the status quo.  Yet there are options which we have yet to address or even consider in an open minded and even handed manner.

What we can learn from a tree should allow us to develop a self sustaining system of energy production far beyond the limitations of our existing and or future needs.

© David Barclay 2006

Field Control

Most of us believe gravity holds the planets in orbit around the sun, but in that gravity is not itself a force of any kind and what we refer to as gravity is merely a dynamic response to the condition of field, it would seem impossible for gravity to hold the planets in orbit around the sun or the moon in orbit around the earth.

Gravity is in fact a no show or a non-event, as gravity itself doesn’t do anything.

The relatively stable orbit of the earth around the sun and the orbit of the moon around the earth are due to a differential in the underlying force of energy determining the form and function of all three systems, in respect to an underlying force of energy referred to as Non-linear Time Field Frequency Acceleration, (ntffa).

As the acceleration of (ntffa) is non-resistant an increase in the underlying energy affects a decrease in resistance to a further increase in energy, whereas a decrease in the underlying energy affects an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy.

In respect to the energy potential of each system, the sun has the greater energy potential, with the earth second and the moon third.  But because the moon is the smallest of the three, the moon has the highest ratio of energy per unit of mass, the earth second and the sun third.

The dynamic relationship existing between the earth and the sun is inversely proportional to the dynamic relationship existing between the earth and the moon.

Also, the internal and external dynamics of all three systems are inversely proportional to each other in relation to the inside and the outside or each system effecting inversely proportional dynamic responses.

It is a differential in energy and resistance which holds the earth in orbit around the sun, in that the sun and the earth exist as separate fields.  The sun exists as a unified field of frequency where a non-simultaneous condition of universe remains relative to the condition of the sun, while the earth also exists as a unified field of frequency where a non-simultaneous condition of universe remains relative to the condition of the earth.  The moon too exists as a unified field of frequency where a non-simultaneous condition of universe remains relative to the condition of the moon.

The earth exists as a unified field existing within the unified field of the sun and as a unified field existing within the unified field of the moon, while the moon exists as a unified field existing within the unified field of the earth and as a unified field existing within the unified field of the sun.  The sun exists as a unified field existing within the field of the earth and as a unified field existing within the field of the moon.

The moon having the highest ratio of energy per unit of mass is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth, while the underlying energy of both the earth and moon continues to accelerate with the moon having the higher rate of field frequency acceleration.

This situation provides both a differential in energy and a differential in resistance affecting the orbit of the moon around the earth.

The moon having the higher rate of (ntffa) is resistant to the acceleration of the earth’s field which is symmetrically focused to the center of the earth.
And because the field of the moon is accelerating faster than that of the earth, the moon is slowly receding away from the earth.  This is due to the differential in energy and resistance continuously increasing.

In relation to the earth in orbit around the sun, the earth is resistant to the acceleration of the sun’s field which is symmetrically focused to the center of the sun.  And because the field of the earth is accelerating slower than that of the sun, the sun is receding slowly away from the earth, despite the fact that the sun is at the center of the solar field.

It is important to note, that as much as the universe is acceleratively expanding so is the dynamic structure of the sun, earth and moon also expanding in proportion to their rates of field frequency acceleration.

Without a differential in the underlying energy of each system, where the smaller body of mass has the higher ratio of energy to mass it would be impossible for separate bodies of mass to exist, as all the mass of universe would otherwise remain as a single body of mass.

In relation to the ratio of energy to mass, the larger mass always has the greater net energy, while the smaller mass has less net energy but a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.

A single block of a single element weighing 100 grams would have more energy than a 50 gram block of the same element, but 100 one gram pieces of the same element would have a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than either the 100 gram block or the 50 gram block.

In relation to the attraction between two bodies of mass, such as the earth and the moon, an increasing differential in the underlying energy of both bodies decreases the attraction and causes an increase in the space between them.

Although the rate at which the differential in the underlying energy of both bodies increases is very slow it is nonetheless a process of dynamic modulation affecting field control.  In other words the process we are searching for which would allow for gravity control is in fact the very process which allows for the moon to remain in orbit around the earth.

As long as the underlying energy of the moon continues to increase the moon will continue to move away from the earth.

In relation to the earth/sun system there is an inverse relationship to that of the earth/moon system, but as the underlying energy of the sun continues to increase, at a much higher rate than either the earth or the moon, the relative dynamic balance existing between the earth and the sun will eventually become unstable and the earth will be forced away from the sun and into a new orbit.

The reason for this is that the earth has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass, in relation to the earth/sun system.

If we consider the element hydrogen having the highest ratio of energy per unit of mass, of any known element, we can understand why hydrogen is so difficult to transform to a metallic state.

Hydrogen lacks sufficient relative resistance to accommodate a metallic state, in relation to the relative relationship of hydrogen existing within the field of the earth.  If hydrogen were situated in a much more highly accelerated field of (ntffa) it would be easier for hydrogen to be transformed and remain in a metallic state.

Hydrogen is so high in energy that it is resistant to the field of the earth, which is why a hydrogen balloon rises skyward, which is also true of a helium balloon.

If we consider gravity to have served as a stand-in while we attempted to understand the dynamics involved, we should by now realize that it is time to let gravity go and consider the application of field dynamics in its place.

The Expanding Universe

Up until 1999 it was believed that the universe was expanding, but at a decelerating rate of expansion, meaning that the expansion was slowing due to the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe.

Then in 1999 it was discovered that the expansion of universe was in fact accelerating, but what exactly causes this acceleration is not known, but whatever it is, is not presently considered to be within the realm of Standard Model Physics.

That the universe could expand at a decelerating rate of expansion seems to defy logic, but this was the case up until 1999.

To understand this more clearly we must realize that gravitational attraction decreases in proportion to the square of the distance.  Therefore, the mere fact that the universe is expanding would or should indicate that the gravitational attraction must be decreasing in proportion to the rate of expansion.  And this being the case, the rate of expansion would continue to accelerate.

It would be impossible for the expansion of universe to be deceleratively expanding; as the universe is either acceleratively expanding or it is not expanding at all.

Now, we are told that the universe has only been acceleratively expanding for the last 5 billion years, as prior to this it was deceleratively expanding.

This period of decelerative expansion occurred between the period of inflation associated with the big bang and 5 billion years ago, which could involve as much as 9 billion years of decelerative expansion.

However, in order for this to be considered possible or even rational requires a complete revision of the existing laws governing gravity, as the rules governing gravity must have been much different 5 billion years ago.  But I have yet to see any new rules for gravity dating back 5 billion years.

It is presently considered that dark energy is responsible for the accelerative expansion of universe, but no one knows exactly what dark energy is, what it would look like or if it even exists.

It would appear that the basic tenets of relativity are not very well understood by the majority of those individuals possessing a PhD in physics.

The idea of the universe expanding at a decelerative rate of expansion is either pure speculation or a creative idea intended to hold the rest of the puzzle together, but in order for decelerative expansion to be possible requires us to scrap our existing laws of gravity.

Gravity increases and decreases in proportion to the square of the distance and to date no one has found this statement to be in error.

Yet, it would seem that some of the rules can be ignored when it is convenient to do so, simply to maintain the appearance of a knowledgeable understanding.  But unfortunately such an attitude is less than logical.

Science is based on facts and not fantasy, yet it would seem that the idea of an expanding universe capable of maintaining a decelerative rate of expansion should be considered factual despite being routed in fantasy or drunken stupidity.

An expanding universe must be acceleratively expanding or it is not expanding.  You have two flavors to choose from, accelerative expansion or accelerative contraction, in relation to the condition of universe remaining relative to the system of reference.  There is simply no such thing as decelerative expansion or decelerative contraction.

© 2006 David Barclay

Rings & Lifters

There is a lot of interest in the levitation of rings and lifters, in relation to the possibility of these experimental models resulting in the control of gravity.

In all of these cases, an electrical current is induced into the metallic structure of the model, which results in the observed levitation.  Yet, it would appear that a satisfactory explanation for the resulting levitation is not forthcoming.

I would suggest that such demonstrations involving levitation do not represent the controlled modulation of gravity, but more accurately represent a distortion of the field associated with the structural dynamics of the various models reacting to the field in which the model exists.

To understand this situation it must be affirmed that gravity is not itself a force of any kind, but is merely a dynamic response corresponding to the potential of an underlying force of energy inherent to the field in which we presently exist.

Therefore the falling or rising of any physical structure is based upon the condition of field, where the dynamics of a physical structure respond to the condition of the field in which the physical structure exists.

For a physical structure to levitate or rise skyward there must be an increase in the underlying force of energy affecting the dynamics of the physical structure relative to the field in which it is levitating.  In other words the resistance of the physical structure to the field in which it is situated must be decreased.

For a physical structure to fall, understanding that falling is dynamic motion, there must be a decrease in the underlying force of energy affecting the dynamics of the physical structure relative to the field in which it is falling.  In other words the resistance of the physical structure to the field in which it is situated must be increased.

As there are both internal and external dynamics affecting any physical structure, the internal and external dynamics remain inversely proportional in relation to an internal and external gravitational response with the electromagnetic potential remaining proportional to the gravitational response.

In this respect the gravitational response decreases symmetrically from the surface curve to the center of field and decreases isometrically from the surface curve to the perimeter of Universe, while the electromagnetic response remains proportional to the gravitational response.

When an electrical charge is applied to the conductive framework of a ring or lifter it affects an inversely proportional response internally, in relation to the internal dynamics responding to the external dynamics.  As it is an electromagnetic response which is induced this affects an increase in the resistance of the ring or lifter to the field in which the ring or lifter is situated.  This corresponds to a decrease in the energy potential of the ring or lifter, which actually increases the gravitational response of the ring or lifter.  This is the exact opposite of what was intended or thought to be demonstrated, as this is actually anti-antigravity and not antigravity.

This in turn causes the ring of lifter to be repelled upward, much like two like poles being repelled.

As soon as the charge is discontinued the ring or lifter experiences an immediate decrease in resistance to the field in which it exists, causing the ring or lifter to fall rather than rise.

This is similar to the experiment where a frog is made to move its legs in response to an electrical charge, but the simple manipulation of a frog’s legs does not constitute control of the frog or the control of the frog’s life force.

The same is true of the ring or lifter, as the levitation of the ring or lifter by means of an electrical charge does not constitute gravity control or even the controlled modulation of the ring or lifter’s underlying dynamics.
  


© 2006 David Barclay