Entries from September 2006 ↓

There seems to be some confusion in respect to our perception of energy and its relationship to mass.

I was recently informed that the ratio of energy per unit of mass was the same for all materials.  But what makes this interesting is the fact that the informant was a well known scientist involved with the new accelerator under construction in Europe.

I know that this man is not stupid, in fact he is extremely bright, but he does insist that the ratio of energy per unit of mass is the same for all materials, as only the mass of a material determines its energy potential.  In other words E=MC2 is valid for all materials, regardless of whether it is hydrogen or uranium, in relation to an equal mass of each element having an equal energy potential.  Both masses would have an equal ratio of energy per unit of mass, which leaves a single hydrogen atom with a very low ratio of energy per unit of mass.

So why would anyone think that the ratio of energy per unit of mass would be different for each and every element appearing on the periodic table?

It depends on what you define as energy, in relation to the question; exactly what is energy?

Is energy the product of a fuel which is consumed or altered in order to do work and or perform some function?  Do we derive energy from coal, wood, gas, sugar, starch etc?

Of course all materials have energy, but is it possible to extract that energy as an actual force of energy?

In order for this to be possible requires that energy radiate or be made to radiate, whereby energy would be considered to a resistant force.  An increase in energy would affect an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy.  The key words are; an increase in resistance.

How could an increase in resistance be associated with an increase in energy, as this would suggest that there should not be any available energy to do work or perform functions?

It is commonly accepted that a force of energy is required and or applied in order to move an otherwise stationary object, such as a bowling ball or a train.  This means that the application of energy is very definitely limited and or determined by the mass of the object to be moved.

This would mean that energy was limited to linear applications, in that a certain quantity of energy must be applied to move a train a certain distance at a certain speed.  And if coal or diesel fuel is used to operate the train, the operation of the train is limited to the supply of fuel.

It is also commonly accepted that the mass of the train increases as it accelerates, which means that the energy of the train itself is increasing in proportion to an increase in mass.  But is this true?

How can there be an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy associated with an actual increase in energy proportional to an increase in mass?

Is mass proportional to energy and is energy proportional to mass?

In a general sense you could say that the larger mass of a specific material has the greater energy, but that is where it ends.

Take a simple hydrogen atom and ask yourself what it is which sustains and perpetuates the existence of the hydrogen atom?  The answer of course is energy, but what exactly is this energy that allows the hydrogen atom to exist and continue existing?

Most would jump in with, atomic energy, or something similar, but what exactly is atomic energy and has anyone ever clearly defined its existence?

The answer is no.  No one has clearly defined the existence of atomic energy, with the key word being energy.

They have clearly shown that there is a factor of resistance associated with the structure of atoms, which allows for nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons etc.  But at no time has anyone accessed the energy of an atom for any purpose.

How could the energy of an atom be accessed by fission or by fusion?  It isn’t and it can’t be done.

We have made an error, as we have mistakenly accepted a false assumption of fact in respect to the idea that energy remains proportional to mass regardless of the material involved.

We assume that more mass always equals more energy without further qualification, when in fact the smaller mass always has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass, which allows the hydrogen atom to have the highest ratio of energy per unit of mass for any known element.

Why?  Because if energy was in fact resistant atomic elements would not last more than a fraction of a second before folding on themselves and vanishing from sight.

In order to sustain the structural dynamics of any atomic structure requires a continuous supply of energy which is steadily increasing.  And the reason why the energy supply must be steadily increasing is because the dynamics of any physical structure are determined on the basis of a dynamic differential in energy and resistance with the energy focused symmetrically to the center of field and resistance isometrically radiating from the center of field.

From this we can see that mass remains proportional to resistance and not energy, always.

If energy is focused to the center of field it would appear impossible for it to radiate, as energy, the underlying force of universe, is a non-resistant force, where an increase in energy affects a decrease in resistance to a further increase in energy.

Oh but, what about fission, doesn’t this process access this underlying energy?  No, all it does is extend the external dynamics and increase the factor of resistance.  You cannot access the internal portion of field from the external portion of field; all you can do is extend the external portion.

You could strip an atom into its subatomic components and still not access the underlying energy of field, as the energy is focused inward and not outward, it refuses to radiate.

The only way energy can be made to radiate requires the underlying dynamics be reversed, which would result in some very unpleasant effects.

In that the greater mass is more resistant to the underlying dynamics of universe, the greater mass of a particular material has a lower dynamic ratio of energy per unit of mass than a smaller mass of the same material.

So is it any wonder that our perception of energy is based on the consumption of mass.  And the faster we consume mass the more energy we generate.

Generally speaking our perception of energy is associated with a destructive process, where we assume that by destroying this we can create that.  Such as burning coal or gas to provide heat etc.

If energy was a destructive force it would not be capable of creating or allowing for the processes of life or for the construction of physical materials.

Energy in the truest sense provides for a differential in energy associated with the dynamics of physical structure, in relation to the various forms and functions involved.

Energy is directly associated with an underlying force which can only be quantified in terms of a relative non-linear relationship.

If energy was in fact proportional to mass, how would we describe the process determining the inherent characteristics of each atomic element other than as a mechanical arrangement involving interchangeable parts constituting units of energy remaining proportional to their mass.

The high energy requirements of mass less particles said to be traveling close to the speed of light is due to their mass less character, yet a mass less particle should have no energy and of course no resistance either.  But nonetheless mass less particles are considered to be a part of our universe, despite the fact that it would be impossible to impart resistant energy into and or to a mass less particle.

The inherent characteristics of each atomic element are determined by a unique ratio of energy per unit of mass, in relation to a specific ratio of energy to mass determining the specific form and function of each element.

If the underlying force of energy can be modulated in a controlled manner, whereby affecting the dynamics of physical structure, it should be possible to not only alter the space and motion remaining relative to each system of reference, but change the inherent characteristics of any known element in order to compensate for a shortage of another element.

We can increase and or decrease the energy of any system, but we cannot achieve direct access to the internal energy involved.   But what we can do is employ the underlying differential in energy and resistance to fuel our human industry.  

Stuck in the mud? Pull yourself up by your own boot straps. Your own power should be able to do it. Being asymmetrical to the pull down of gravity. If you push and pull something at the same time with equal force the object doesn’t move. But what if you staggered the push pull so that they didn’t occur at the same time, with one force being stronger than the other end. It means you would move forward.

Many devices speak of this asymetrical difference including Tom Bearden and his reference to Lorentz straightening out the asymmetrical mathematical formulae of Maxwell which is taught to students today. Bearden claims that it is the asymmetrical aspect of the equations that allows for free energy. And they’ve been written out of Maxwell.

So perhaps it is the lopsidedness of something that is the key to tapping the aether. Some aspect that pokes out of the smooth field.

We received word from Veljco Milkovic to check out his site, www.veljkomilkovic.com . One item of interest, the lament that digital was taking over mechanical and we are losing our expertise in mechanical. Obviously not good in that if something mechanical works on the drawing board and computer doesn’t mean things actually work until you do ‘em.

Veljco has sent a copy of his book dealing with the throw away asymmetrical force that he believes can be harnessed and scaled up. We have asked him to comment on Unity which is focus, like a microscope.

Nothing new from Frolov or Puthoff except Dr Hal has moved to larger more wonderful premises and Big Al has remarried. All the best.

This inertial asymmetrical force includes the work of Sandy Kidd, a guy who with some kind of plunger action was able to thump his way around in a boat with no motor or paddle, just a device that smacked the inside front of the boat and moved it forward. A similar experiment was on wheels.

Naturally, I side with Unity as the most unique and conceivable way of achieving free energy and gravity control. But this inertial business is telling us that if we’re sitting in a perfectly balanced seat on wheels and lean to the left and tap, the energy will shift the inertia left and if we’re on wheels we’ll move left. Is it gravity? Or is it that tiny bit of inertia generated by the tapping of your finger. Veljco suggests more.

I don’t know, Marty, what do you think?
I think my name is Vince. Who’re you?
Just a guy who wonders about stuff.

But not control.

Many scientists today are pursuing the Thomas Townsend Brown method of antigravity by zapping things with electricity. This is all very fine and like the amazing levitating ring it shows a kind of coupling with the object in question, which rises when it’s plugged in and falls or stops when you cut the power.

Levitating rings and lifters are amazing! They appear to be true antigravity.

But they are not gravity control.

Control of gravity means not harnessing the mythical gravity beast itself, it doesn’t exist.

To control gravity in the sense of electromagnetism, not rockets, means to understand and control the underlying force that actually controls gravity.

President George W. Bush has not yet finished his speech and I am moved to comment.

Oil has the best chiefs executives and army but, to realize there’s a new guy in town, meaning, the underlying force. The force that was proved to not exist by the 1889 Morley Michelson experiment - the aether just ain’t there. Wrong!

What the hell do you gas providers think it might be that powers the universe. If you were smart you’d make the jump and somehow attach a charge to free energy before it’s free. A horrible thought. Yet, what can we do to get the job done? We think it’s universities with teachers and students interested in
www.gravitycontrol.org/projectunity

If governments have it and are not forthcoming, it’s up to us. We are free and enterprise.

If there really is an mib (altho based on a comic) and a whole lot of other secret folk supposedly keeping a lid on it and sworn to some weird secretive masonic oath, or whatever, it’s up to us.

To the opposition if there is one, keeping the savior of the technological world a secret at this time of need might be considered a sin.

It looks like the part of the world which is against the exaltation of this work, if they have it, wants to make sure it’s good to the last drop before introducing a new system.

And of course, maybe nobody has nothing (g) and we are in for a terrible and perilous decline with no hope save the quest for gravity control.

I can say this. Although Project Unity is difficult and strange to even scientists, I believe it works. It’s like flubber, the new flight.

The four phase field modulator is ready to go. And boy do we need help to make it so.
Antigravity

In past posts and articles I have written on the subject of Back Engineering UFO Type Craft, with one such article posted on Peswiki.

Despite decades of denial and debunking it is fair to say that the military/industrial complex has done a fair job of keeping the existence of UFO and ET within the realm of science fiction.

If the military do have extraterrestrial artifacts it would appear they are, at the very least, having a tough time trying to back engineer the technology involved and an even tougher time attempting to understand the required science.

It would appear that the military might have maneuvered themselves into a catch 22 situation, as in order to keep their secret things secret they cannot openly seek out solutions to very difficult problems associated with extraterrestrial science and technology.

The biggest snag is the fact that secrets themselves are problematic and the greater the complexity of the secrets the more problematic they become, especially after decades of deception associated with secret research and development.

If the science is the real problem, which I think it is, it could be many more decades before the applicable solutions are finally realized, unless of course someone comes up with the answers in the meantime.

Here at Gravity Control we are attempting to present an alternative view concerning the dynamics of non-linear drive in the form of a field frequency modulator.  It’s a simple idea, but not one that is easily grasped without a certain degree of openness or a willingness to consider alternative explanations for the existing conditions of universe.

No one with any degree of comprehension and or understanding is going to attempt interstellar transport with anything less than a non-linear drive system capable of instantaneous transformation, which puts the military establishment at a bit of a disadvantage in attempting to achieve such a goal or duplicate extraterrestrial science and technology.

The first problem with the science is coming to terms with the concept of a universe which not only exists as a non-simultaneous condition remaining relative to the system of reference but also exists in a dynamic state, whereby an underlying force of energy sustains and perpetuates the existence of this condition.

To appreciate the situation we only have to consider the fact that a nuclear reactor is presently considered efficiently suitable for the purpose of heating water.  And in this respect the heavy elements constituting the nuclear fuel are thought to provide a source of energy proportional to their mass.

The science involved appears logical enough until you attempt to understand what it is which prevents the universe from collapsing on itself.

For a long time it was thought that the universe was running down, which allowed for the idea that the expansion of universe was slowing, whereby it would eventually stop expanding and start contracting.  But as we have discovered this is not the case, as the rate of expansion is accelerating.

This has led to the idea of dark matter and dark energy, without anyone being quite sure what either is.

On top of this we have found background radiation, which is believed to be left over from the big bang.

If the universe is acceleratively expanding, the relative rate of expansion must be proportional to an increasing source of energy capable of sustaining the accelerative expansion.  Therefore the supply of energy must also be accelerating.

This would indicate that the universe is dynamically structured, whereby the basic elements of universe must also be dynamically structured.

We presently consider atomic elements to be running down or decaying in that they are thought to lose energy in proportion to a decrease in mass, but if they are not running down but are in fact being sustained and perpetuated by a steady increase in energy our existing perception of the situation must be in error.

If there is an underlying source of energy sustaining and perpetuating physical structure we can be quite sure we do not yet know exactly what energy is, because if we did we would have already developed a non-linear drive system capable of providing for instantaneous transformation.

Yet our human logic prevents us from moving forward, as we appear trapped in our own thoughts concerning the nature of energy.  We evaluate energy as corresponding to a proportional quantity of mass, where more mass provides more energy.  Of course this is in part true, but in a very general sense.  If an underlying source of energy provides the smaller mass with a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass we might consider our existing perception to be self defeating.

If such an underlying force does exist we might realize that our ideas about strong and weak forces could also be in error, as such forces might be better described as dynamic responses to an underlying force.

Therefore the control of these strong and weak forces should be possible through the controlled modulation of the underlying force, an idea which is readily apparent in nature.  Yet we insist that this is not possible and that no such underlying controlling force exists.

It would appear that the existence of UFO type craft and ET’s prevents us from admitting to such a possibility, as to do so would be viewed as letting the cat out of the bag.  Without such secrets in the form of secret knowledge no one nation or any one person could hope to have control over the rest of the world.

The controlled manipulation of the world’s economy for the purpose of the few would no longer be possible if a source of unlimited energy were available to everyone in an equal manner.  The world’s economy would no longer be based on a restricted supply of energy and raw resources, but on the various purposes to which this new source of energy would be applied.

In light of UFO type craft and ET’s the human race could no longer be considered the only intelligent species in the universe, which would mean that our human activities would be subject to a higher authority than that existing on this earth at the present time.

When you take such ideas into consideration it is not that difficult to understand why and how the existence of UFO type craft and ET’s have remained hidden from public view for so long.

How could the leader of any nation openly admit to the criminal atrocities having been committed for the purpose of hiding the truth from their people?  Such criminal activities cannot be justified in a free and democratic society where each and every citizen is equally subject to the laws and regulations to which they have agreed to abide.

Is it possible for any national administration to come clean and let us in on the truth of this matter or will the truth remain hidden and continue to be protected by whatever means deemed necessary?

If it is the latter, it is not for the purpose of maintaining national security, but for the purpose of hiding the fact that the security of our nation cannot be protected against the influence of extraterrestrial intelligence.