Entries from October 2008 ↓

Air Turbine

Based on Viktor Schauberger’s work, his implosion vortex method of propulsion.  The idea is to spin up a tornado of air (or mercury?) in its own container.  When the spin reaches a certain velocity the vortex maintains itself.  This force can then be nozzled like a rocket as a propulsion system that requires no fuel of any kind.  This aether or zero point system is another way to tap the underlying force.

Let’s hope these guys come through better than Steorn.

It would appear that back engineering a UFO type craft is the ultimate goal of the military black ops, but there seems to be a problem in achieving such a goal.

In as much as a crashed UFO might be of some assistance the task is nonetheless a huge challenge, as not only is the technology obviously foreign but so is the science upon which such technology is based.

Without an understanding of the science upon which the technology is based we are left completely in the dark. Therefore it would seem rational to anticipate revisions to our existing science, but the element of secrecy employed puts us at a very real disadvantage in this respect. No such revisions are forth coming it would seem.

The argument put forward is that extraterrestrial craft coming from other parts of the universe are simply not possible, as the speed of light prevents such a thing.

Of course conventional science doesn’t know how to explain extraterrestrial visitors to our planet for the same reason we still view rockets as a legitimate means by which to access space. We have a very disturbing response to anything which threatens our self defined sense of superiority.

But let’s face it, our modern science and our vision of space exploration is only one step ahead of a push-cart mentality. And as long as we view bigger and more powerful rockets as the answer we are not going to get very far.

We only have to consider our existing perception of space, as we view space in terms of a linear perspective. We actually believe we can employ a measuring stick to define the distances involved without considering the universe to be non-linearly structured.

If space itself is not linearly structured our existing perception of the distances involved is completely inadequate. And if space is not linearly structured it is doubtful that time can be measured in linear terms either.

This would suggest that our speed of light limitation might not be applicable, whereby we might not even be right about light having a linear speed.

If this is true we have a lot to learn about engineering a UFO type craft.

For some reason many anticipate the government or the military to one day openly supply the required information, which some believe is presently being kept under wraps for reasons of national security.

If this were true there would have to be scientists and engineers who already know the answers and may have already built a fully functional UFO type craft capable of interstellar access.

I myself don’t believe this to be the case, because, despite the secrecy, there would have to be some tell-tale signs leaking through to the mainstream scientific community and to date no such tell-tale signs are to be found.

I would suggest that the military is somewhat baffled and lacks the necessary skills and resources to achieve such a goal despite a great deal of misinformation and or disinformation suggesting otherwise.

They may have recovered a crashed UFO, but to consider the possibility that such a craft has been successfully back engineered is quite a stretch.

For starters you don’t back engineer a UFO type craft, which might actually be the problem. Such a craft must be developed from the ground up starting with the necessary science and then on to the advanced technology and not the other way around.

I have heard it said that the energy required to develop anti-gravity drive is beyond our present level of ability, but how many realize the subtle fact that we still aren’t exactly sure what energy is? And if we don’t know exactly what energy is how can we be so sure how much energy might be required?

And when you consider we are not sure what gravity is either it should not come as a surprise to discover we might not be bang-on about a few other things as well.

So engineering a UFO type craft would seem a daunting challenge indeed, if not impossible at the present time.

Fortunately there are those among us who have a real passion to understand the how and why of a UFO type craft. And one very small group of enthusiasts involved in this quest are situated within the pages of http://www.gravitycontrol.org

At gravitycontrol you will find both the book Unity and Project Unity, which could very well supply you with the answers you are looking for. And should you discover questions rather than answers, you might consider joining our forum and asking those questions. You never know, we might surprise you with some answers.

Biomass, wave, wind, hydrogen, all to help carry on with combustion.  

Yet not one of our Green Guy groups suggests the tackling of the electromagnetic drive, antigravity.  

Could it be they would if given the word?  

Or is gravity control off limits to our green institutes?  

Not if we contact them and tell them that a Manhattan style dedication to the perfecting of gravity control is the best natural and renewable resource we have.  And it’s constant throughout the universe.  Rockets will never get us to the stars.  

But Gravity Control Will.

Please get in touch with all the Green Guys you know, Treehugger, the Appollo Alliance, governments, all of them.  

For without our perseverance they will continue to preserve their only knowhow, combustion.

I hope you will all write to whoever you think might help get gravity control on the ballot.

I know I am.

I find it absolutely amazing that Roger, being regarded as one of the leading physicists attempting to understand the origin of universe, would have such difficulty attempting to comprehend the dynamic condition of a relative state.

The idea that Roger and so many of his colleagues do not fully understand what a relative state of universe might look like is akin to the idea of the Pope not understanding or comprehending the significance of God.

It would seem obvious I must be missing something, either that or there is some point I myself do not understand.

I hear reference to; the latest model of the universe? Latest model, what happened to the old one? After all there is only one universe even if it does include infinite relative states.

Roger holds to the idea of the Big Bang theory, but with a twist in that there were a series of Big Bangs. A model where the universe continues to repeat itself over and over again, time after time.

But nowhere in any of this will you will find reference to an underlying force of energy affecting universe, as the existing model does not require an underlying force of energy, which suggests to me that perhaps there might be some form of magic involved.

What exactly sustains and perpetuates the existence of universe? What exactly sustains and perpetuates the existence of an atom?

If we ignore the possibility of an underlying force of energy determining the form and function of physical structure to the point where we perceive physical structure to be self creating, self sustaining and self perpetuating I would have to conclude that there is something wrong with our perception of universe.

It would appear we refuse to view the universe on its own terms, but choose to view the universe on the basis of terms we have determined to be consistent with our social/political agenda. Unfortunately the universe does not cooperate or make changes to accommodate such a purpose.

An expanding universe is a condition of field, in relation to the condition of universe remaining relative to the system or point of reference. Therefore there are an infinite number of conditions of universe expanding simultaneously at different rates.

And when you consider the simultaneous nature of universe it seems rather odd to hear physicists and or cosmologists make reference to millions and billions of years.

But it’s all in the math they say…and who came up with this concept?

What I want to know is what a million years looks like? But not wanting to seem unreasonable I’ll settle for someone showing me what a single year looks like.

Are all the years the same or are they different?

But my most urgent question is this; is there such a thing as a year existing beyond the deductive reasoning of the human mind, in that our existing concept of time is based on a human invention of the mind?

I would think not, as the existing condition of universe does not correspond to such reasoning nor does human rationalization change or alter the condition of universe in any manner whatsoever.

The universe exists on its own terms and is driven by a dynamic force of energy determining the form and function of all physical structure. Therefore the nature of universe is dynamic.

From A to Z the universe is dynamic…therefore change is continuous and without end.

Beyond a purely imaginative perception there is no static state associated with the dynamics of universe and no meaning to the repetitive reference to millions and billions of years.

Are we ensnared by our linear perception of universe? It would appear we are, to the extent that we might very well view ourselves as prisoners of a linear agenda.

1, 2, 3, 4, can we afford to feed the poor?

I think this is something everyone can relate to; you go to sleep at night and wake up feeling rested and ready to meet the challenges of the day, well almost.

The standard explanation is that you were resting whereby you magically, in a manner of speaking, recharged your batteries.

Even sick people are at their best first thing in the morning, even if they did not get much sleep. But as the day wears on they slide down hill and by evening they are not looking very good.

This it seems is a puzzle to both doctors and care givers. Even cancer patients are at their best first thing in the morning, but why?

Night corresponds to the dark side of the earth, the portion shielded from the sun.

We receive more energy during the night than during the day, in relation to an underlying force of energy.

During the night we are shielded from the distortional effects of the sun and the differential in energy existing between the earth and the sun. So there is less resistance and more energy available to us during the night than during the day.

Consequently we wake up feeling rested and energized even if we had a restless night.

Amazing how simple things can be when we take an underlying force of energy into account.

Yes, the available energy is greater during the night, when we are on the dark side of the earth facing away from the sun.