It is commonly accepted that gravity and inertia are responsible for maintaining the orbits of the planets around the sun, in that gravity is perceived as a primary force of universe capable of allowing for the stability of this or any other solar system lasting for millions and billions of years.

It is only in recent years that the electromagnetic relationship existing between the sun and the planets has been acknowledged to exist, which has led to much speculation and experimentation in the area of electrogravitics.

Even so gravity itself still remains an enigma with many attempts being made to reconcile the relationship of gravity and electromagnetism.  So it seems somewhat strange that we should consider gravity to be a primary force of universe without yet knowing exactly what gravity is or understanding its relationship with electromagnetism.

To date no one can tell you why or how gravity holds the planets in orbit other than by describing a mathematical relationship associated with mass.

An argument is made for gravity and inertia maintaining orbital stability on the basis of astronomers calculating the motion of the planets against the background of the fixed stars with precise accuracy extending both backwards and forwards over periods of time.  But the accuracy of such extended precision cannot be confirmed or denied on the basis of calculations associated with gravity and inertia.

It must be understood that the extension of such calculations backwards and forwards in time is speculative at best, as there is no physical evidence to support such past and future events having occurred beyond the present era.

Only the confidence of astronomers in their existing standards of understanding allows for the acceptance of such speculation, even though such understanding is incomplete.

It is historically recorded that the planets and moons have not always followed their existing orbits and have on occasion altered their path of orbit and or crossed orbits involving near collisions resulting in cataclysmic events.

Velikovsky presented evidence to this effect in his book Worlds in Collision and those that followed, but for the most part his work was rejected by the scientific community.  Yet it would appear that Einstein took a sincere interest in Velikovsky’s work and agreed with much of the material presented.  http://www.varchive.org/itb/index.htm

It would appear that arguments demeaning the competency of historical recorders who claim to have witnessed the earth moved from its orbit during close encounters with both Venus and Mars are nothing more than an excuse for our inadequate understanding. It’s easier to simply dismiss the historical record on the basis of our own ignorance.

Realizing we live in a relatively primitive and barbaric world with little understanding of universe and little objectivity regarding the self imposed limitations we so guardedly adhere to, it should come as no great shock to discover that gravity is not itself a force of any kind, but simply a dynamic response.

If gravity is not itself a force of any kind it would be impossible for gravity to influence the orbit of the earth or the orbit of any other planetary body around the sun or the orbit of a satellite around a planet.

Therefore it would be equally impossible for gravity and inertia to determine the stability of planetary orbits, as orbital stability is simply the physical manifestation of a dynamic response corresponding to the condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference.

If we consider the condition of field to be determined on the basis of a dynamic underlying force of energy we will realize that a differential in this energy exists between all systems in motion.

And in that this underlying force is its self dynamic in nature, the differential in underlying energy existing between all systems in motion must be continuously changing.  This would suggest that the stability of planetary orbits is limited to a certain degree of dynamic variance existing between the systems involved.

Taking this one step further we might also consider that the stability of the earth in orbit around the sun, in the company of so many neighboring planets, could not be expected to be maintained for more than a limited duration due to the complexity and variance of the dynamics involved.

At the present time we are concerned with the problem of global warming, which we prefer to attribute to human industry.  Yet we are aware of neighboring planets experiencing increased warming without the aid of human industry.

Consequently many scientists deny the possibility of the sun being responsible for global warming, while attempting to convince the population they are collectively responsible for the problem and its remedy.  This allows political opportunities to be created on the basis of personal resolve to control the situation in a timely manner.    

If it were not for a differential in the underlying energy of the sun and the earth there would be no earth/sun system.  Furthermore, it is the degree of differential which determines the warming effect of the sun upon the earth and the greater the differential the greater the warming effect.

To suggest that the sun is not responsible for global warming is akin to saying an unattended campfire or a bolt of lightening could not be responsible for a forest fire, as the resulting forest fire was due solely to the tinder dry conditions of the forest, in which case we might prevent forest fires by cutting down more trees.

If all human industry were to cease immediately we would still be subjected to the effects of global warming, as global warming is the natural result of an increasing differential in the underlying energy of the sun and the earth.  Global warming is a base level response to a disproportionate increase in the sun’s dynamic energy potential relative to that of the earth.

Therefore we can anticipate global warming to increase until the earth’s orbit shifts.

Gravity does not hold the earth in orbit around the sun and the earth cannot maintain a stable relationship with the sun forever, as the cyclical nature of the solar dynamics are solely dependent on the relative relationship of those underlying forces of energy involved.

The earth is held in orbit around the sun by means of a differential in non-linear dynamics associated with an underlying force of energy which is inherently responsible for the continuous existence of physical structure and the condition of universe remaining relative to the system of reference.

Therefore an accelerative increase in the existing energy differential between the earth and the sun will cause an ever increasing accelerative variance to grow.  This means we cannot avoid the future, as it is determined on the basis of a dynamic force of energy and not personal bias.  

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