Research & Development

If the plan is to colonize distant planetary bodies and or exploit the natural resources of space, we have a problem.

Back in the 60s our collective ambition was to land a man on the moon, with a promise of bigger and better things to come.  And although we landed several men on the moon and recovered lunar geological samples we have long since failed to duplicate this achievement or make any real effort to do so.

What happened and why do we remain hesitant to return to the moon intent on establishing a permanent base?

The Apollo Missions provided an exciting time for all involved and public interest in space was at its peak.

I remember the first lunar samples returned to earth and the stir of excitement they created.  Everyone was watching as initial experiments were conducted to ensure that the lunar material did not represent a threat to our terrestrial ecology.

A number of plant and animal species were subjected to and or injected with lunar material and the results carefully noted.  One particular test, which was widely publicized, including television coverage, involved two species of plants.

Two horticultural plots were planted with bean and corn and watered with a solution containing pulverized lunar material.  The result was a radical increase in the rate of growth, genetic deformities and cancerous anomalies, despite the fact that no radioactivity was detected beyond normal background levels.

Everyone involved was completely baffled by these test results and no explanation was forthcoming or even available at the time.  It was a complete mystery, but nonetheless an important part of the adventure.

I had speculated that the lunar material would effect accelerated growth in plants, but I was ill prepared for the radical effects of the lunar material.

At the time it was generally accepted that the moon maintained a uniform relationship with the earth, in the sense that going to the moon involved nothing more than traveling a long distance in space.  In other words the only thing separating the earth and the moon was thought to be space.

Although I did not have the answers at the time I made up my mind to find an explanation for these adverse affects.

Consequently, years later I was confident that I had found a solution, but to my shock and horror I discovered that these initial test results had been altered and in some respects deleted from history.  At first it seemed incomprehensible that NASA would or could simply delete the record concerning unfavorable test results, but that is exactly what they did do.

These test results although somewhat limited in scope were critical in advancing our understanding of space science and technology, as they indicated very pointedly that we lacked the ability to access the uniform condition of any other planetary body.

Rockets were and are inadequate and could and cannot under any circumstances allow us to access the uniform condition of the moon or safely utilize the natural resources of space.

This brings us to the point of contention, as it was political will which got us to the moon, an achievement generally regarded as a huge success.  Therefore it would not have been viewed politically prudent to announce that the effort had been nothing more than an initial experiment allowing us to move forward to even more advanced research and development.

On top of this we had military intelligence to consider, as we were in the middle of a very hot cold war where failure was not an option.

Today the cold war is long over, but still no one is willing to correct or even admit to having erred in the decision to hide critical scientific data.  Consequently we continue to pour billions of dollars into a space program which cannot succeed if our goal is to colonize another planetary body.

If the agenda is to simply gain scientific knowledge of other planets and moons robotics can do the job, but if our ambition is to one day colonize another planetary body we are simply spinning our wheels.

NASA has even suggested that lunar materials might represent a benefit to terrestrial farmers, as they do admit that the lunar material did in fact affect accelerated growth in plants, while claiming that no adverse effects or structural alterations occurred in respect to the various plant and animal species subjected to and or injected with the lunar material.

If we were to take NASA at their word and did bring lunar materials back to earth for the purpose of commercial horticulture we would be faced with a disaster.  The lunar material would pollute the soil in a manner whereby crops intended for human and or animal consumption could no longer be safely grown.

There is currently a plan to utilize Martian water for the purpose of a manned mission to mars, should such a mission actually occur.  The ingestion of this water would represent a serious health hazard to the mission crew, as despite its apparent or real purity it would represent a non-uniform potential just as the lunar material represents a non-uniform potential.  Martian water would seriously jeopardize the health and safety of the crew, whereby they could be incapacitated or even die from such adverse and damaging effects.

Even in the area of interplanetary and interstellar communications we are lacking in our ability and or willingness to address issues concerning the non-uniform relationship existing between our planet and all other bodies in space.

New and innovative science and technology must be developed if we are to achieve our goals in space, which is what we at gravitycontrol.org continue to emphasize.

Much of the material we offer on gravitycontrol.org and gravitycontrolidealism is new and perhaps somewhat foreign to many readers, but given half a chance these revolutionary concepts will allow for a clear and comprehensive understanding of our relative relationship with universe, in relation to redefining existing evidence and clues.

The future is waiting to be discovered and the future is now.

© 2006 David Barclay  

  

Internal & External Dynamics

To date we do not consider the dynamics of physical structure in terms of internal and external dynamics.  We simply consider the dynamics of physical structure in terms of a three dimensional format.

In relation to the dynamics of our planet earth, it is quite amazing that we do not or have not considered the internal dynamics being inversely proportional to the external dynamics, in the context of a balanced field structure.

The consequence of this would seem to be obvious, in that we assume the internal dynamics to be an extension of the external dynamics.  Therefore it is possible to consider gravity increasing to the center of the earth’s core simply because gravity increases toward or in the direction of the earth’s interior on the outside.

No one has ventured into or found a method by which to access the earth’s interior structure, as the inside is always on the inside and never exposed to the outside.

And regardless of how we poke and prod the earth it is impossible to access the internal portion of the earth’s structure, as any such attempt in the form of a hole merely extends the external dynamics inward without accessing the internal dynamics.

The underlying energy of the earth’s field does in fact accelerate to the center of the earth’s core, but the internal and external dynamic responses to the underlying energy potential remain inversely proportional.  Otherwise the earth would tend to fold on itself, which it does not do.

In fact the earth appears to be expanding, which would be attributed to the continuous increase in the acceleration of the underlying force of energy affecting the structural dynamics of the earth.

And in as much as the universe, the non-simultaneous condition of universe remaining relative to the earth, is acceleratively expanding, it would seem reasonable to consider the expansion of the earth remaining proportional to the expansion of universe in relation to the relative space, time and motion involved.

Without considering the internal and external dynamics remaining inversely proportional we are looking at the world with one blind eye.

If the internal and external dynamics of the sun are inversely proportional this would give us a completely different view of the sun’s structural dynamics.

We would be forced to reconsider the idea of the sun being driven by a process of nuclear fusion, as this requires the interior of the sun to be extremely hot.  On the basis of inverse dynamics, the core of the sun should be extremely cold.

The problem as I see it is that we do not appear to understand the basics of a relative condition, which may be why we are still searching for a simple unified field theory.

The earth itself exists as a unified field system, whereby the universe existing relative to the earth is a condition corresponding to the field of the earth.  Therefore the universe existing relative to the earth is a relative condition of field remaining relative to the earth as the system of reference.

In a similar manner there is a condition of universe remaining relative to the sun, where there is a condition of field remaining relative to the sun as the system of reference.

If this is true for planets, stars and moons it must also be true for atoms, as there must be a condition of field remaining relative to each atom, in relation to an atom being a system of reference.

Therefore each atom has both internal and external dynamics which remain inversely proportional,

This gives us a completely revised view of atomic structure, as well as a revised view of bodies in space.

The control of gravity will only come after we view physical structure as being the result of inversely proportional internal and external dynamic responses, whereby physical structure is a dynamic response to an underlying force of energy.

The whole idea of gravity control is to affect the inversely proportional dynamics of a field system by modulating the underlying force of energy focused to the center of the systems field.

If you can modulate the underlying energy of a system you must also affect the dynamic responses associated with that system, which includes gravity.  

Energy Defined

E=MC2 is a one size fits all type of statement, but energy does not comply with the demands of the statement.

It is assumed that an increase in mass affects an increase in energy, which is true in a very general sense, but untrue in a specific sense.

In order for this famous equation to stand the test of time, energy must be equally proportional for all substances.  In other words, a certain mass of hydrogen must possess the same quantity of energy as an equal mass of uranium.

No allowance is made for an underlying force of energy, as E=MC2 associates energy with mass in terms of a resistant force.

When we talk about an underlying force of energy, such as Non-linear Time Field Frequency Acceleration, as described in the June 05 post entitled “The Energy”, we are talking about a dynamic force capable of sustaining the form and function of all physical structure.

In respect to atomic elements it is apparent that their form and function is characteristic of their physical identity.

Each element on the periodic table has a different mass, whereby we assume the more massive elements to possess greater energy, which is true in a very general sense.

In this respect we assumed that energy radiates isometrically from within each element.

In the case of the hydrogen atom and the uranium atom, the uranium atom has the greater mass/energy, but the hydrogen atom has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass in terms of an underlying force of energy.

Each atomic element has a certain ratio of energy per unit of mass, with hydrogen having the highest ratio of energy per unit of mass of any known element.

Also, if we have two unequal masses of the same element, the smaller or lesser of the two masses will have the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.  This means that the smaller portion of any given substance has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.

As the mass of any similar substance increases, the ratio of energy per unit of mass decreases proportionally.

If we have two equal portions of a similar substance, the two equal portions will have a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than if they were combined as one single mass.

In relation to atomic structure the underlying energy is always focused to the center of field and does not radiate under any circumstances, in that the underlying energy is non-resistant.  Therefore, an increase in the underlying energy affects a decrease in resistance to a further increase in energy, while a decrease in the underlying energy affects an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy.

If we break a given substance into many pieces we have not accessed its internal energy.  Even if we break an atoms nucleus we have not accessed its internal energy, but have in fact increased the ratio of energy per unit of mass associated with the broken pieces.  No energy is released, as the energy remains focused to the center of field.

Energy in terms of a non-resistant force of energy allows for a greater understanding of energy in providing for the form and function of physical structure.

© 2006 David Barclay

  

Blinded by the Light

Light speed and the constancy of light speed is a touchy subject with many, but it is the one factor which holds us in limbo and denies future progress.

Our existing perception is that light travels in a linear manner much like a car, train or bus........traveling at a constant 299,792,458 meters per second on the basis of light traveling one meter in 1/299,792,458ths of a second.

The speed of light is artificially fixed to avoid confusion created by its fluctuating rate. So, the idea that light speed is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second and remains constant for millions and billions of years is only valid if the universe remains in a static state.

Our perception of light and light speed is the key to understanding the dynamics of universe. Without a clear understanding of light we are locked into a static mode of thought.

The idea that light from distant galaxies has taken billions of years to reach us is a fabrication intended to extend the age of universe, as it is impossible to view ancient history simply because we are located at a perceived distance from a distant location.

The universe is dynamic.........it is dynamically structured and functions in a dynamic manner, which means the only thing remaining constant is change.

If you grasp relativity you will realize that the value of c remains relative to the system of reference, as the value of c is different for every such system. This means that the value of c is different for every atomic element, in that the value of c is a dynamic response to the condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference.

The measuring of light speed does not measure the linear motion of light, but measures a linear duration of time associated with the dynamic acceleration of the underlying field of frequency determining the condition of field.

To date we have confused linear and non-linear responses, as the light from distant stars does not travel toward us like a train or bus, which is why stars remain as tiny dots of light in the night sky. We see what there is to see at the moment we view the sky.

An optical lens modulates the condition of field, which can either increase or decrease the field of view.

Light is associated with an electromagnetic response and if we understand energy we know that the intensity of light increases with a decrease in energy and an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy. Therefore the underlying force of field which is non-linearly accelerating toward us, here on earth, is isometrically decelerating to the far reaches of space in a proportional manner, which explains the Doppler effect.

But, the light is not in linear motion..........the field itself is in non-linear motion focused to the center of field.

Therefore most of the light from distant stars is radiated isometrically away from us, which causes the viewed light to diminish in our direction.

There are no millions and billions of years, as this concept of time is an abstract human invention, intended for the purpose of convenience.

You cannot photograph ancient history through a telescope focused on remote galaxies, unless you know the underlying rate of field frequency associated with each star system viewed.

You can view history simply by viewing the moon or the sun, as the underlying rate of field frequency associated with those bodies is higher than that of our earth, but an increase in distance alone does not allow us to view ancient history.

The universe is not a mechanically driven static apparatus, but a dynamic system involving an infinite variety of field conditions.

Our existence is presently confined to the unified field of the earth, regardless of how far we might travel in space by means of linear propulsion.

We use the analogy of a train whistle to explain the Doppler effect, but a train is in linear motion. The analogy is not very helpful, as it makes not distinction between linear and non-linear motion.

The universe is acceleratively expanding at an ever increasing rate which remains relative to the system of reference, which is planet earth. The rate of expansion is proportional to the underlying field of energy acceleratively focused to the center of the earth's core.

From this we might realize that the light of distant galaxies is not in linear motion and moving toward us at the speed of light where it takes billions of years to reach us.

Light does not itself move toward us, as what we view is a non-simultaneous condition of field which is expanding isometrically away from us. Therefore we view the existing condition of field remaining relative to our earth, which has no relationship to our existing concept of time denoted in millions and billions of years. The existing view is contemporary to our present condition and not to the condition of remote and distant galaxies.

Space is not linearly structured, as it does not correspond to linear dimensions associated with our geometry. To understand this we can envision a conventional space craft attempting to reach the furthest stars. Our space ship would never reach its destination as it would be turned back due to the isometric decrease in field potential, (field energy), extending from the center of the earth's core.

Our space craft would gradually slow until it could not proceed any further and would be turned back. If it held together it would accelerate back toward the earth and at some point it would undoubtedly be torn apart by the process.

The acceleration of field is a condition of field in relation to a dynamic unified field of frequency, whereby this allows for changes to the relative condition of field extending from the center of field to the outer boundary of universe, but does not provide for the linear motion of any dynamic response.

Our perception of light in linear motion and or the linear bending of light does not help us to understand the dynamics of universe, as the linear motion of light would require the light itself to be in motion independent of the field in which it exists, which is quite impossible.

Light should be viewed as a relative dynamic response, in that the value of c is a relative variable, where an accelerating field of frequency determines an increasing value of c.

Both the past and future remaining relative to our earth exist beyond the relative boundaries of our existing condition of field and cannot be viewed through a telescope or any other apparatus located within the existing condition of field.

To access past and or future conditions of our field system requires us to access a simultaneous condition of field existing beyond the relative boundaries of our existing condition of field. There is no linear direction to past and or future, as non-linear modulation of field is required for this purpose, which should be left for another post.

(c)2006 David Barclay

Water

I did not realize what a mystery water represented until I read a story on the subject at www.livescience.com
Evidently we do not understand why ice floats or why water expands when it freezes etc. So an understanding concerning the basic principles determining the behavior of water are still a work in progress. But maybe, just maybe, we can shed a little light on the subject.

To start, a water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one atom of oxygen and as hydrogen has the highest underlying energy potential of any known element water is indeed very special.

Water evaporates into the sky and descends as rain, snow and or hail etc. so water goes up and down, in that it has the ability to defy gravity.

If you are in the mountains at an altitude of 10,000 feet above sea level you will find that water boils at 90 degrees C instead of 100 degrees C at sea level, which is usually attributed to a change in atmospheric pressure. Also, in the mountains water will remain frozen at a higher temperature than at sea level, which is also attributed to a drop in atmospheric pressure.

Of course there is a relationship between atmospheric pressure and the boiling and freezing of water, but this is not the whole story.

The inherent underlying energy of the water relative to the condition of field in which the water exists determines the condition of the water.

In this respect the underlying energy I refer to as Non-linear Time Field Frequency Acceleration, (ntffa), which is explained in detail on earlier posts.

Water at a high elevation above sea level has more underlying energy relative to the condition of field, existing at this high elevation, than at sea level.

It is the underlying energy potential of water which is the key factor in determining the behavior of water and not atmospheric pressure.

We also ascribe atmospheric pressure as being responsible for steam rising from a boiling kettle, where we say the steam or gas is lighter than air, but in making this reference we miss what occurs at the underlying level. Consequently we are puzzled by the behavior of water.

Why does ice float? Ice floats due to the increased ratio of energy per unit of mass associated with frozen water and the colder the ice the higher is the underlying energy potential in relation to the ratio of energy per unit of mass.

Ice has a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than liquid water, which is determined by the relationship existing between the water and the field in which the water is situated. Therefore we can determine that ice floating in liquid water at an elevation some distance above sea level is going to be more buoyant than ice floating in liquid water at sea level.

The changes in water from liquid to solid or from liquid to gas depends on the energy of the water relative to the condition of field in which the water is situated. In this respect a decrease in the energy of field will affect a proportional increase in the ratio of energy per unit of mass associated with the water.

Why does ice expand? Ice expands due to the increased energy of the water molecules relative to the condition of field in which the ice is situated. The spacing of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms is increased due to an increase in their underlying energy relative to the condition of field in which they are situated.

At very low temperatures ice actually shrinks, but it does not actually contract, as this has to do with the dispersion of atomic components as opposed to the idea of the ice actually contracting. This process requires a study in itself, which would be best left for another post.

In relation to Covalent bonds and Hydrogen bonds the hydrogen bonds are 10 times weaker than the covalent bonds. Why?

Covalent bonds correspond to the two bonds between two hydrogen atoms and the one oxygen atom in one water molecule, whereas the hydrogen bonds correspond to the bonds between one hydrogen atom of one molecule and one oxygen atom of another molecule.

The relationship existing between the two hydrogen atoms and the one oxygen atom are many times stronger than the hydrogen bonds existing between molecules, which is due to an inverse relationship.

To understand this we must realize that each atom exists as a unified field system unto itself, much like the earth or moon existing relative to the sun etc.

In relation to a single water molecule, there are 6 relative relationships existing between the three atoms. There are two oxygen/hydrogen systems, two hydrogen/oxygen systems and two hydrogen/hydrogen systems. The relative relationships existing between the oxygen atom and each of the two hydrogen atoms are not the same as the relationships existing between each of the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom, while the relationship between the first hydrogen atom and the second hydrogen atom is not the same as the relationship between the second and first hydrogen atom.

On top of this there is an underlying force of energy which is continuously accelerating relative to the system of reference, which determines the form and function of each atom and their relationship in a molecular format.

Only single atoms of hydrogen have a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than a single molecule of water, which sets water apart from all other known matter. A water molecule is the basic molecule, nothing simpler is possible in relation to a molecular structure capable of remaining stable. Also it is not possible for a molecule to possess more energy than that associated with pure water.

As water vapor disperses into the upper atmosphere the hydrogen bonds break down and at an even higher altitude the covalent bonds finally break down as well, which allows free hydrogen atoms to escape into space, while allowing some of the oxygen atoms to fall back into the atmosphere.

The underlying energy of the earth's field is focused to the center of the earth's core whereby there is a proportional decrease in energy extending isometrically from the center of the earth's core to the furthest reaches of space. Therefore it is natural for hydrogen to rise skyward, as up is the path of least resistance for hydrogen due to its high underlying energy potential relative to the field of the earth in which it exists.

On the inside of the earth the reverse is true, as the internal dynamics effect inverse responses. Therefore, hydrogen within the earth tends to migrate to the center of the earth, while the heavier elements migrate toward the surface.

Water is a good coolant, because it takes a great deal of heat to lower the underlying energy of water molecules. In other words it takes a higher proportion of heat, (resistance), to heat water than it does most other liquids.

Hot water radiates heat, which is a factor of resistance, but the water does not radiate its underlying energy, as the energy is always focused to the center of field.

In relation to a single molecule of water, the oxygen atom represents the bulk of the molecules mass, and in relation to the increased mass of a water molecule consisting of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, the increase in mass causes a reduction in the ratio of energy per unit of mass.

One single hydrogen atom has a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than two or more atoms of hydrogen forming a molecule of hydrogen, while a single atom of oxygen has a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than when it is in combination with two atoms of hydrogen forming a water molecule.

On top of this it is important to note that the internal dynamics of each atom effect inverse responses inversely proportional to the external dynamics.

Of course this all sounds very complicated and to a point it is, but on the other hand it certainly simplifies our understanding in relation to the properties of water.

To demonstrate this clearly we could imagine water in an environment of low energy, which would effect a huge energy differential between the water and the field in which the water is situated. This situation would cause the water to disperse in to single molecules and if the energy of the field were low enough the molecules would break up into hydrogen and oxygen.

On the other hand where the energy of the field is increasing the opposite would be true.

In relation to the work of Nilsson and Saykally attempting to determine what happens when ice melts, it would seem strange indeed if liquid water retained the same structural dynamics as ice.

Of course water is water regardless of its state, but when ice melts it must lose a certain percentage of its underlying energy otherwise it would not melt.

The bonds, covalent and hydrogen, are the effect of field dynamics as determined by an underlying force of dynamic energy.

Only a fluctuation in the underlying dynamic force can affect change, therefore a change in the condition of field must affect a change in the structural dynamics of physical matter situated in that field.

If liquid water retained the tetrahedral arrangement of water molecules in ice, it would not be liquid water, but ice. In other words, the liquid water would not flow, but would be move more like a dragging chain.

Water flowing down hill loses energy as it flows, which keeps it flowing. It is only a decrease in the underlying energy of the water which allows it to flow from high ground to low. To flow from low ground to high would require the water to be gaining energy as it flowed relative to the field in which it was flowing.

Ice is an energy state of water, change the energy state and you change the condition of the water. Such a change in energy must also change the dynamic structure of the water molecules.

Therefore I am inclined to agree with Nilsson and his group of researchers.

It must also be noted that X-rays represent a non-uniform potential which distorts the uniform field continuance of water molecules, which is going to give one a distorted view of the situation. Making the assumption that at higher temperatures the bonds will bend and stretch where this should be seen through a microscope is a stretch in itself. In relation to the continuance of field frequency acceleration this might not be the case at all.

So, the X-ray argument is not very helpful in understanding the nature of water.

(c) 2006 David Barclay