E-Interview with Boeing’s Michael A. Gamble

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.).