TQFGC Guest Author

The Quest For Gravity Control
After the days when large corporate powerhouses of the day had killed off any hopes of “free energy” or zero-point energy potential, many ideas and speculative thoughts have remained undeviating to the truth that energy exists in an ether and this ether can be mined by modern day technology and the belief in doing so has given new hope to many scientists’ and idealists, of recent generations, trying to create the best quest for gravity control.
Non profit and self-funded organisation, Gravity Control, is one of many small teams across the world seeking the answers to commonly asked questions, as to how we can contribute to our future without the aid of combustion and fossil fuels. Their simplified explanations and useful resources help even the most novice end-user understand the basic fundamentals and importance of free energy.
As well as searching for these veiled answers to important questions, they also seek researchers who believe in the power of gravity control technology and hope to reach advancements in the technology from exploratory to operational practice.
After looking at their research and observing their theory, I started to ask myself a few questions regarding the effects of a world with free energy and whether Gravity Control is one of the major players in non-governmental research.
Are we ready to take on the challenge of free energy?
We’re more technologically sophisticated now than we have ever been throughout history. It is important to note when Nikola Tesla hinged his lifelong scientific work on a commitment to providing the world with free energy, we may not have been ready to adapt to it, as a species, and implement it into the technology of the day but, with that said, that’s something we’ll never know.
Today, as the fossil fuels quickly deplete, we realise that we’re running out of options for powering our vehicles, homes and cities. Not only are we quickly eating away at our natural sources, we’re using these in a way that aren’t good for our planet and so not only do we need a new option, but it also has to be greener and cleaner. As a race we’re are more understanding of the need to change and thus our acceptance levels of new, clean power is at an all time high.
Is our intelligence enough to realise the true potential of the ether?
People quickly forget that we’ve actually been using free energy in the use of windmills and water-wheels for many years. But these are stationary methods which don’t involve thrusting an object forward as such. To tap into the energy around us involves doing things we’ve never done and believing in something that we were taught not to do.
Manipulating gravity to create anti-gravity, for such purposes as propulsion, spread like wildfire throughout the 1950’s, however, the intelligence at the time wasn’t what it is today and if we can take on the right theories and make them reality, we’re in a fantastic position to utilise the energy fields around us.
What are the costs of free energy?
Due to the nature of energy and the desirable economic gain from offering it, it makes it hard to believe that such companies who benefit from the sale of energy are gladly welcoming free energy anytime soon. Even history has given us an insight into the incredibly rich and their power to decide what is allowed and what isn’t. From patent protection being turned down and funding taken away, remember that the incredibly rich also fund new ideas, if they didn’t like an idea they could easily pull the funding or even use large payments to sway the decision of a man who helps patent an idea.
Project Unity, Gravity Control’s combined library of research and shared submissions from like-minded zero-point enthusiasts, is an excellent example of the human attraction to research, develop and implement a life-changing idea into a reality. They seem willing to work with the government to enlighten us all on these clean and free energy principles but, still maintain their with or without you attitude, which shows a real desire to do whatever it takes to make energy free.
So who is number one in the quest for gravity control?
For me, Gravity Control who runs Project Unity, seem to have the drive, knowledge and an excellent idea for a working anti-gravity device. Whilst nobody yet has delivered anything substantial, their approach is a worthy winner for me. Their openness to gravity control is rather unique, as others closely guard their prized information and theories, yet, Project Unity defines what they believe and I’m sure, sooner rather than later, they will have an answer for us.
They ask for the help of serious researchers rather than asking for huge amounts of opinionated rubbish that frequently swamps the rare, factual genius of those in the know. Sharing references and resources, ideas and theories, they make useful, easy to understand suggestions and explanations that would intrigue and inform any level of reader.
The search to find perplex motion without fuel continues and with more and more people becoming open to the idea, the more we’ll see in terms of theories and understanding. We’ve still got a long way to go however; it is only a matter of time before the first domino of anti-gravity falls and drives forward a free and clean movement.
This article was written by Alan Gregory. He writes for Appliances Online by day offering advice from washing machines to fridge freezers. By night he continues work on his anti-gravity coffee machine. Follow his tweets on Twitter @AlanJGregory.

Stanton, Like Your Hat

I’m pretty sure that Stanton Friedman understands the idea of gravity control.

Might he understand the theory of Unity by W. David Barclay, he would tack his rhetoric and undoubtedly be a booster of gravitycontrol.org.

It surprises me that Stanton has continued his quest of making people believe in ufos for at least 35 years and never really considered the power source?  Of course he has.   But he seems stuck in trying to prove ufos exist.

Nevertheless, this is a decent documentary except for the moon landing acceptance.

 

The Quest For Gravity Control

I remember where I was when I thought that the government would save us from combustion self pollution. I was working at CJOR 600 Radio, mostly a talk station.
The former news anchor for CBC, Stanley Knowles, was the guest on the Jack Wasserman Show. I was the announcer producer. And as I said, noowww heere’s Jaack Wasserrrmannnn (actually I never said it like that), the aircon people turned on the radio station’s first air conditioner ever and blew thirty years of dust into the studio. I switched on the mic and all I heard was coughing (and Stanley Knowels was there to promote his film against pollution). Suddenly the control room went black, I gagged and had to get out of there. It was 1968 and I thought, despite this setback, the government of the people will reveal gravity control and save the world.

Cut to more recent times. The internet. I thought, my burning desire for gravity control might be solved. Two weeks, max.
From then to now I’ve learned more.
I’ve learned that despite my intense desire to invent gravity control, it won’t likely be me who does so.
Perhaps it will be a student of W. David Barclay’s book, Unity.
Whether W. Dave’s book or something else, I know there is someone out there who is capable of making it happen.

I also discovered that controlling forces are keeping too many secrets for security reasons and suppressing entrepreneurship.

We live in another day just before the dawn.
As the sun tips the horizon it’s a new day.

The Quest For Gravity Control continues….

The reason of course new ideas are suppressed is oil but even oil should know we are moving to non combustion and help us get there.

Gravity Control Explained

W. David Barclay disagrees with modern science. But modern science doesn’t seem so modern compared to Barclay’s take on what’s happening.

PROJECT UNITY Chapter one

Project Unity is the result of more than 40 years of study and research that redefines our perception of universe in relation to the form and function of physical structure.

To begin we must consider the basic terms of reference we presently employ in attempting to define universe and the principles involved.

We assume it possible to determine the exact speed of light, in relation to the linear speed of light, whereby light is said to be in motion in the same manner as a train, bus or plane. On top of this we further assume the speed of light to represent a universal constant upon which we might base our calculations concerning the energy of mass. Consequently such an assumption not only restricts our minds to the confines of a box but keeps us in the dark.

The first thing we need to realize is that there is no such thing as an absolute second, meter or gram, which means that each and every second, each and every meter and each and every gram is of a slightly different value. This means that no two seconds are of the same absolute duration, no two meters are of the same absolute length and no two grams of the same absolute weight.

Therefore the greater the number of meters, seconds or grams involved in our calculations the less accurate will be the evaluation. And in a similar vain the more we attempt to define the accuracy of our calculations, in relation to so many millionths of a second etc., the less certain is the accuracy of our calculations.

So, when we say that the exact speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second based on the observation of light, traveling one meter in 1/299,792,458ths of a second, we should be saying that the approximate speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, based on the assumption that light travels in the same manner as a train or bus.

For light to travel at 299,792,458 meters per second requires the light be in motion independent of the field in which the light exists and for the light to remain in linear motion relative to the system of reference.

Already we have a number of problems, as in order for any of this to make any sense requires the universe to exist in a static state, whereby it might be possible for the speed of light to remain constant. Also the value of the second and the meter must be described in static terms describing their linear values, which in itself suggests that the values are in fact identical, in that each and every second is of an equal duration and each and every meter is of the same exact length, which is quite impossible.

Even if we use one single meter rule to measure a length of 299,792,458 meters, we would still not know exactly how long 299,792,458 meters really is, as there would be an accumulation of errors involved in our measuring.

So the very best we can do is to determine an approximation in relation to the linearly assessed speed of light. Therefore there is some question as to the accuracy of our assessment, which is hardly an exact value and is certainly not an absolute value.

If all systems of Universe remain relative to each other, it would be impossible for time, space or motion to be the same for any two systems, as time, space and motion must be different for every system of Universe.

In other words, if time, space and motion remain relative to the system of reference there would be a measurable difference in the time, space and motion associated with each system of reference.

And if this is true, the speed of light would have to be different for every system of reference, which includes each and every atom, every planet, every moon and star etc.

Therefore it would seem somewhat absurd to say that the speed of light remains constant, as the dynamic nature of Universe makes such a thing quite impossible. Plus, the value of those terms of reference upon which the speed of light is based must be changing due to the dynamic nature of Universe, as well as being different for every system of reference.

What we are suggesting by insisting that the speed of light remains constant is that the speed of light can be determined on the basis of absolute values, whereby the speed of light itself might also be considered absolute.

This leaves us in an absurd situation, as the exact constant speed of light requires us to ignore the relative dynamic nature of Universe and accept the idea of a static condition.

We know today that the Universe is in fact dynamic, which means that change is constant. So if there is such a thing as a relativistic constant that constant is change.

In other words, it is impossible to know the exact speed of light in terms of a linear evaluation or a non-linear evaluation, as by the time we have made our measurement the speed of light has already changed. And even if we keep measuring the speed of light both day and night for many years we will still not be any closer to determining the exact speed of light.

Certainly we could come up with an approximate average velocity, but that is not what science is saying or even attempting to say. What scientists are saying and attempting to achieve is to define the exact speed of light as a constant value.

The importance of this point cannot be understated or underestimated, because if we accept the idea of light speed representing an exact constant value we have limited our ability to understand the very nature of Universe. We will have shut the door on the possibility of any future progress in understanding and or comprehension.

Our common terms of reference, such as meters, seconds and grams are abstract inventions based on a linear perception of Universe, which continues to provide handy terms of reference to those involved in the various aspects of trade and commerce. But in relation to defining the condition of Universe or the underlying condition of physical matter we must find terms better suited to the task.

We have based our assessment of light speed on an underlying belief that space and motion determine a duration of time, whereby we ascribe a certain linear duration to the second, minute and hour etc.

This in itself determines the Universe to be linearly structured, where it would be possible on the basis of seconds and meters to determine the size and age of Universe. Again this requires each second to be of an equal duration and each meter to be of an equal length.

For example; if the Universe is thought to be 14 billion years old, we are talking about a whole lot of seconds where no two seconds are of the same exact duration and an even greater number of meters where no two meters are of the same exact length, whereby it is thought possible to measure the age of the Universe in seconds and the size in terms of so many meters from here to there.

Now, the argument is that the measurements are made in terms of light years or astronomical units, but in the final analysis we are still talking about meters and seconds.

When someone makes the statement that the Universe is 14 billion years old they are telling us something, which they want us to believe. The same is true when someone says it is 14 billion light years from here to the perimeter of the visible Universe. They want you to believe that they know what they are talking about and for you to accept what they are saying as the truth or something very close to the truth.

Then they tell you it took 14 billion years for the light from that distant galaxy to reach the lens of their telescope, in that the light has been traveling at a constant velocity, of 299,792,458 meters per second, for 14 billion years.

In this respect an astronomer shows us photographs taken of a distant galaxy and assures us that this is a photograph of an event which occurred billions of years ago. They want us to believe that it should be possible to take a picture of something that happened billions of years ago, despite the fact that we are not yet capable of taking a picture of something which happened last week, unless of course the picture was taken last week.

They are in fact suggesting time and space are the same, in relation to a certain linear distance being equivalent to a certain linear duration of time.

This of course is quite impossible as both the distance and the time are dynamic considerations remaining relative to the system of reference, which in our case is planet Earth. Therefore the visible Universe exists as a dynamic non-simultaneous condition in relation to a unified field of frequency remaining relative to planet Earth.

We know today that the Universe is acceleratively expanding, where the most distant galaxies are thought to be moving away from each other at close to the speed of light. And as we know gravity decreases in proportion to the square of the distance we can be quite certain that gravity at the perimeter of the visible universe is negligible or virtually non-existent.

This would indicate that the accelerative expansion of universe will continue to accelerate at an ever increasing rate.

From this it would be fair to ask what happens when the rate of expansion reaches or exceeds the speed of light. What I hope would happen is that we might question this perception of universe, as it would be impossible for a galaxy to be in linear motion at the speed of light or in excess of the speed of light. It’s simply not physically possible, yet there have already been suggestions made to the effect that some distant galaxies are already moving apart in excess of the speed of light.

It is only in the last 20 years that we have determined the expansion of universe to be accelerating, as prior to this we had assumed the expansion to be decelerating, How we could have considered the expansion to be decelerative causes one to question the logic involved, as it would appear that a decrease in gravity proportional to the square of the distance would indicate the expansion to be accelerative.

Today we consider the accelerative expansion of Universe to have begun 5 billion years ago, as we still consider decelerative expansion to have been occurring prior to this due to the balance of matter and dark energy existing at the time, although no one is quite sure exactly what dark energy is.

And on the basis of all this we are told that it would be impossible for other intelligent beings to travel to our planet Earth from the farthest reaches of space, as they are restricted by the speed of light being 299,792,458 meters per second. And in this respect they have already concluded that the speed of light is the same regardless of one’s location or the direction in which one is traveling.

Of course we cannot get a linearly propelled space craft to travel at or even close to the speed of light, but linear propulsion is hardly modern or close to providing a solution to space travel. A push cart functions on the same basic principles as our modern space craft.

Our situation at the present involves a problem of perception, as we perceive the fundamental dimensions of Universe in terms of linear proportions, which if left unchecked will continue to confine us to thinking in terms of the present moment being more real than anything else or any other consideration.

It is currently impossible to define the present moment in terms of an absolute condition or anything remotely close to an absolute condition, as the present moment has no defined boundaries corresponding to an absolute condition.

The present moment is in continuous motion as a continuance of time, which is itself accelerating relative to the system of reference. In other words time is in motion, whereby it is impossible to accurately describe a three dimensional space/time continuum other than as a static condition of space and time, which was in fact the original idea.

This is a very odd situation, as we have yet to consider the possibility that space and motion are the products of time, where time is in fact the accelerating underlying force affecting the condition of space and motion remaining relative to the system of reference.

Therefore we might realize that our linear based single unit measuring imposes very definite limitations in respect to our understanding of Universe.

Consider the scientist who observes remote and distant galaxies through the lens of the Hubble and assures us that the Universe is 14 billion years old, whereby it is thought possible to take photos of events occurring billions of years ago.

In order for this to be possible requires the time and space to be the same in both directions and for the speed of light to remain constant for billions of years while maintaining an equal and constant linear velocity in both directions.

In other words, it is thought that the light linearly traveling towards the lens of the telescope is also linearly traveling in the opposite direction away from the light source at the same exact speed while the universe acceleratively expands.

If scientists simply stated that they had taken photographs of galaxies located within the context of the relative condition of Universe remaining relative to the lens of the Hubble, such a statement would be true and accurate. But this is not what they have to say or would agree to say, as they insist they can see the remote past of our Universe in relation to events having occurred many billions of years ago.

Should it be determined that time slows isometrically from the core of our planet to the far reaches of space, we would find that time was actually stretched. This would suggest that our existing perception was in error, as we are in fact confined to the non-simultaneous condition of Universe as it exists relative to our system of reference.

In other words the Universe can only be viewed from where we are now and not from where someone or something existed billions of years ago.

There is in fact no such thing as a light year, a hundred years, a million years or a billions years, as such concepts are abstract inventions of the mind. Time in the context of a linear duration is associated with social order and has nothing to do with the dimensions or duration of Universe.

If time is stretched isometrically from the core of the Earth it would be impossible to linearly travel through space in order to reach a distant galaxy located at the visible perimeter of Universe, as from the perspective of all concerned our space craft would never reach its destination.

The Universe is continually expanding at an accelerative rate of expansion and our space craft is confined to the unified field of our Earth, which means its linear progress away from the Earth will be slowed in proportion to the square of the distance traveled.

On top of this the space itself continues to be stretched in proportion to the square of the distance, where the distant galaxy to which our space craft is headed will be constantly moving away from our space craft. The further our space craft linearly travels the greater will be distance between the space craft and the distant galaxy.

If on the other hand our space craft was ordered to turn about and return to Earth the distance in the direction of the new heading would suddenly begin to contract in the direction of Earth. As the space craft progressed back toward Earth both the linear duration of time and the linear distance would contract in the direction of Earth. The return trip would be much shorter than the outward voyage.

If we consider that the time, space and motion of Universe does not correspond to our linear format we might realize that the Universe is non-linearly structured in relation to the form and function involved.

This alone would allow us a whole new perspective of the situation, where we would realize that our linear perception of Universe was sorely inadequate and incapable of allowing for a realistic evaluation.

We would realize that our rockets or any other form of linear propulsion were not going to serve us adequately in our attempt to explore space.

Certainly we can explore our solar field system with linear driven space craft, but once beyond the limits of our solar field we are going to encounter a serious problem, which already appears evident in relation to Pioneer 10 & 11.

To date we assume it is the gravity of the Sun which slows theses space craft traveling in deep space, yet the gravity of the Sun decreases in proportion to the square of the distance. If the gravity of the Sun decreases in proportion to the square of the distance these space craft should not be slowing down.

It should be apparent that something else is affecting their progress, such as the stretching of time and space, which would cause them to be slowed relative to the Earth.

This would suggest that the accelerative expansion of Universe is an effect remaining relative to the system of reference.

If this is the case, we have no idea how old the Universe is. And in an equal manner we have no idea how many meters it is to the perimeter of the visible Universe. But this should hardly matter, as the Universe is not linearly structured.

We should be considering the actual dynamics involved in order to gain an accurate perspective of Universe. And once we have an accurate perspective we will be in a better position to determine the best approach to space travel.

We should be attempting to develop a new science and new technology to allow us to access Universe. This would not only allow us access to the relative condition of Universe remaining relative to Earth, but access to every condition of Universe in terms of the many different conditions of Universe existing relative to all the other systems of reference.

There are many billions of billions of facets to Universe and each facet represents a non-simultaneous condition remaining relative to a system of reference. This would indicate an unlimited challenge in terms of the potential benefits, as an unlimited reserve of energy and resources would suddenly become available to us, which in turn would allow for the basic needs of our global society.

New Book By Veljko Milkovic

Written in Serbian and English, Veljko Milkovic’s new book,
GRAVITATIONAL MACHINES, covers the work of Leonardo Da Vinci, Tesla, and the latest discoveries.

The most important aspect of his new book is how Veljko proves that the pendulum is more efficient than electric motors that rotate.

This video contains that information and more.

For your copy of GRAVITATIONAL MACHINES BY VELJKO MILkOVIC please click below

THIS BOOK AND OTHERS BY VELJKO MILKOVIC

For those of interest this new book and others, there’s fascinating reading ahead.