Entries from January 2009 ↓

It would seem we have a communication break down when it comes to linear and non-linear evaluations.

Of course we need linear measurements to engineer anything whether it is an aircraft or a automobile, that is a given, at least I thought it was.  Yet there seems to be some confusion in this respect.

All I am saying is that there is a difference between engineering an aircraft and attempting to evaluate universe, as it is impossible to employ the same terms of reference in both instances.

How are we going to understand or comprehend the opportunities available to us if we continue to ignore those self imposed limitations we have set for ourselves.

Many will argue that the apparent or perceived speed of light can be evaluated on the basis of linear terms, yet the argument is somewhat pointless as no one is going to ever travel linearly at the speed of light.

So many must think that if you apply certain terms in one instance you must be able to apply them in many different instances and to a certain point this is true, but the simple concept of light speed  being measured in terms of meters per second or a fraction of a second per meter defies logic.

We equate speed with many different things, such as trains, aircraft, bicycles, cars and trucks etc., which is all very fine, but then we jump to the idea that time has a linear speed which is what we are saying when we state that light travels one meter in 1/299,792,458ths of a second.

How useful is this idea?

It might be convenient for an engineer, but it is hardly convenient or even useful to a scientist attempting to comprehend the dynamics of universe.

Yet somehow the scientist and the engineer have to find a way to work together instead of finding themselves in opposition.

Is it really that difficult to grasp the idea that linear terms are required for engineering and non-linear terms are required for the purpose of space navigation?

If there is a road block this is it, because there is no way forward without a solution to this linear/non-linear problem of understanding.

We assume light to be in linear motion in the manner of a train simply because that is our perception of the situation, yet if we gave this some serious thought we might realize our linear perception of light speed might represent a serious error in judgment.

This is not an argument to win points, it is something much more than that, it’s a question of our human survival.

Will we get passed our linear restraints or are we destined to or for extinction?

We as people invented a linear concept of time keeping for our own purpose of convenience, yet no linear duration of time exists in the context of a physical universe.  But here we are in the 21st century making reference to billions of light years believing this to be logical, rational and intelligent.

How on earth could we consider the possibility of light traveling anywhere for one year, never mind billions of years?

Ask yourself this;  how fast is a linear second?  Is it not one second per second?

There is a time differential between atomic clocks in orbiting satellites and ground based clocks, which just might indicate a differential existing between earth based clocks and the outer boundary of universe.  Yet, in relation to interstellar space, we assume time to be of equal value regardless of the distance involved or the direction of travel.

Of course we can rationalize the situation to accommodate our assumptions, but such a practice is simply a way of avoiding the reality of universe.  We can hide behind a rationalization but we can’t change the reality of universe.

If there are no actual linear durations of time there is no possible manner by which light can be in linear motion.

The validity of light speed, in terms of a linear speed, is the cornerstone of our modern physics and as such a determining factor in our perception of universe.

What we need now is the resolve to determine the truth of the matter.

In conversations with Michael A. Gamble regarding his gravity research for The Boeing Company, we asked if he might consent to an e-interview with gravitycontrol.org.  The following transcription is the result.  Aside from formating for this blog, no portion of the interview has been altered in any way.

Question 1 from GC….Can you sum up the essence of your research as in, did you have a wow moment and if so, what was it?

 Answer  1) MG:  I started this ”study of gravity” more as a curiosity than research.  Looking in the text books all you find is a statement that gravity is the attraction between two bodies (masses) with a number value (32ft/sec2).  The variables being the size of the masses and their seperation.  I thought there must be something more to it, so I started collecting data about the earth (magnetosphere, radiation belts, atomsphere, ionosphere, planet structure, geology, etc).  Then went through the data looking for patterens, similarities and groupings.  In engineering you start with a ballpark number (WAG or SWAG) and work the problem from there.  Being of the electronics flavor I am trained to think in terms of waves, harmonics and frequencies.  The “wow moment” in the data analysis came when I realized that my initial assumptions were hitting very close to home (right on the money)!  After that things got real interesting.   

Question 2 GC….in relation to synchronous infinity, could this also be described as a simultaneous response?

Answer 2) MG:  In reference to the universe I prefer to use the term synchronous rather than simultaneous. (see: answers 5a, 5b) 

Question 3 GC…Would you agree our linear perception of universe is an inhibiting factor preventing us from grasping the simplicity of a perpetual response?

Answer 3) MG:  No, in engineering we use simple linear approximations to math functions all the time in every day work (knowing their limitaitions).  Also, we have computers crunching the full math functions (simulations) in the background.  However, sometimes the math does get in the way of the solution.  For example we have a brand new airplane sitting in the hanger instead of the flight line because someone(s) pushed the button (too soon) and got the (wrong) answer(s)!  To answer the question more directly you have to have a ballpark number (know something about the operating environment) and also know the limitations of your tools (no cracked bats).  From there you work the problem out with good thinking and a documented approach till you get a solution (sound engineering practice).

Question 4 GC……Do you view gravity as a dynamic response as opposed to an actual force?

Answer 4)  MG:  If the numbers are correct gravity looks to be one of the resultants of huge low frequency electromagnetic waves, very similiar to the way force (torque) is generated in an electric motor.  In fact this planet might be the armature of a very large motor.   

Question 5 GC….. Simultaneous, meaning all at once, at the same time.  Do you see the universe existing in a simultaneous state?  If we are mistaken in respect to our linear perception of light speed and light has no linear speed we might also be wrong about our linear perception of time, in respect to there being linear durations of time.  Could you comment on this?

Answer 5a)  MG:  My definition (understanding) of the word (meaning) ”simultaneous” is two or more independent events happening at the same moment in time.  The key word here is independent.  If there is any connection between those events then they become synchronous not simultaneous.  

 Question 5b  GC….Do you see the universe existing in a simultaneous state?

Answer 5b)  MG:  No, synchronous by the above definition (events not independent).  Not only does the universe appear to be synchronous but regulated (controlled) as well, similiar to a closed-loop process.  Who knows, it might even be running in automatic rather than manual mode.

 Question 5c GC:  If we are mistaken in respect to our linear perception of light speed and light has no linear speed we might also be wrong about our linear perception of time, in respect to there being linear durations of time.  Could you comment on this?

Answer  5c)MG:  In engineering linear approximations (of the complete function) are much easier to work with.  However, you have to know the limitations.  When the %error becomes measurable the approximation is no longer valid.  Example1: a carpenter using a bubble level to build a house (small scale) and a pilot flying coast to coast (large scale). one does not need to take into account the curvature of the earth.  Example2:  three scientists, one looking at the normal world, one looking into a microscope and one looking into a telescope.  To each the observed laws (in that region) are linear, however they are definitely not the “same” linear.  From micro to macro something changed.  Example3: Einstein’s ”unified field theory” (had the same problem).  It was either curved (nonlinear) math and flat (linear) space or linear math and curved space.  You know which one he picked!  To get back to the speed of light, it probably changes like everything else.  The forward velocity of any wave is affected by the media it passes through.  Examples: sound waves passing through air or water, electrical waves passing through air, wire or PCB (very familiar with this one).  The speed of light in space all by itself maybe 186,000mile/sec, but passing through a different media (matter?) all bets are off.

Bonus Question GC….In our e conversations you suggested that there might be a fifth frequency. What do you mean by that?

Answer 6) MG:  When I did the fourier analysis on the origional data, the number cruncher came back with a fundimental and three harmonics (same as Tesla’s numbers – four frequencies). Since releasing the study I have received feedback about “Schumann Resonances” which has five frequencies.  If these are the actual gravity frequencies then there is a shift in “C” (speed of light) as I also used the standard number (186K) in the data reduction.  

    Going back and looking at the inner planet core structure, those layers (crust, mantle and core) also agree with the harmonics (not in the charts).  Also been asked to supply some words to go with the charts.  Even had a school teacher (university professor) catch my bad spelling of the word “Lamda”.  The problem now is I am not allowed to make any additions, deletions or changes (even type-Os) to the study (as released) without going back to Boeing for re-release.  

DISCLAIMER: These answers are my (Mike Gamble) opinions only and have no reflection on my employer (The Boeing Co.).

First off, free energy is not free.  Much thought and finance must go into tapping this free energy and if you get it, how do you deal with it?

Free energy is different things.  

Wind, but of course you have to build windmills to tap it. 

Solar, the panels for conversion to electricity are becoming cheaper.  There is even a paint you can apply.  Great strides have been made in solar power.  The expensive solar panels are being replaced with cheaper film and even paint.

Moving water is supposed to be one hundred times more effective than wind.  Many new inventions are tapping currents and waves.

Hydrogen and H2O are a part of the free energy family but again, the energy is not free because the research and development of this source is not cheap.  New thinking and new machines are required to make it work.  In this case, since combustion continues to be involved it’s just a new way to spark an explosion.

The ultimate source of free energy is all around us but again, it will take understanding and the right technology to bring it to bear.  We have tagged this source with that of gravity control but as we dig deeper on the subject we have realized that it is more.  

The underlying force that runs the universe is the true free energy.  But it too is not free.

Many man hours have already been invested in tapping this source of free energy including those of Tesla, Keely, Bearden and Bedini, and more.  They call it the zero point. The energy that exists beyond the natural earth and is the source of power that runs the universe.  Project Unity taps that source and it is unlimited and doesn’t pollute.

The one thing that keeps coming up that tops them all in free energy is the extraction of power that runs the universe.  That’s our focus.

Somehow, I still think all those unsold cars are at least part of the answer.

Let’s say they were all affixed with electricity, hydrogen and or magnet motors.  All of which would be part of green power.  

With that in mind, all we have to do is excite green power that we have more than just wind to work with.  Companies like Suzlon would perhaps give us a chance beyond wind, wave and solar.  But perhaps not.  

They love their wind, solar and possible tide power.  It doesn’t occur to them much that something else might work better.

the new way

www.gravitycontrol.org