Hi there, I’m the guy who wrote the book Unity.

When I wrote Unity I had the new energy crowd in mind, as well as the various space agencies of the world, because you may have missed something very important.

Yes, I know its a bit boring and seems almost like preschool to many of you, but if you don’t have the basics, the rock bottom basics, down pat you are not going to get very far with your various attempts at tapping into an actual energy source.

There is only one energy…and you can call it whatever you want, such as zero point, aether energy, field energy or non-linear time field frequency acceleration, but that is the bottom line…that one energy.

Every single aspect of universe is determined on the basis of that one energy.

Every single system of universe has an energy field and it is the interaction of the various energy fields creating differentials in energy which determines the form and function of all physical structure.

So, we have this one basic energy as the cause of all interactions and reactions of universe.

And if we don’t know how to modulate that energy to accommodate our needs we are pissing in the breeze, so to say.

Robert Park would call it false science, but Robert doesn’t know of what he speaks. What he refers to as science is all about thought control and people control. Can’t have you thinking outside the barn now can they, no sir that would not be in the best interest of the few who want to control the many. And control they do, whether we like it or not.

Want anti-gravity, think focus, because gravity is not a force of any kind, no it is not.

Gravity is a dynamic response to the condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference and is an effect of the underlying energy of that system.

No mechanics involved…none, zip, zero. A dynamic continuance of universe is what we are dealing with and the only way we are going to move forward is by applying the underlying dynamics to our specific purpose and or intent.

Whether it’s aerospace engineering, medicine, agriculture, geology, astrophysics or any other field of endeavor we need to know the basics by which physical structure is possible, the basics by which life is possible and the basics by which space exploration and colonization is possible.

If we fail to realize the significance of the most fundamental aspect of our existence and the continuing existence of this universe we are not going to make it as a civilization, we will fail.

But, I am hopeful, very hopeful that some of you are going to take the time and read what I have to say. I am hopeful that you might realize the significance of getting the bare bones basics right.

And should any of you have a question about any of this, please, please, please ask and I will do my best to answer.

David

http://www.raven1.net/moret.pdf

The curse of nuclear waste…….nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

A lot of people are of the opinion that water is water is water.

David Suzuki was recently quoted as saying bottled water was toast.

So what’s the deal with water?

Water is H2O, hydrogen and oxygen, but there is something about the hydrogen and the oxygen which is not commonly acknowledged and seemingly misunderstood.

Not all water is equal regardless of purity, as the energy of water differs depending on the size of the water molecules. The smaller the molecules the higher the energy potential of the water, in relation to the ratio of energy per unit of mass where the smaller mass has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.

Also, the more uniform is the relationship of the water to the host environment the better, as non-uniform distortions can and will affect the quality of the water in relation to its ability to maintain a uniform continuance of form and function associated with any life process.

Many are skeptical of such claims as it is commonly accepted that more is better, whereby more water should provide more energy. However this is a very generalized concept regarding the relationship of energy and mass, regardless of the material in question.

It is not generally accepted that the ratio of energy to mass is dependent on the ratio of energy per unit of mass where the ratio of energy per unit of mass changes in relation to an increase or decrease in mass.

If there was no difference in the ratio of energy per unit of mass it would be impossible to increase or enhance the energy of water and its subsequent effects on the processes of life.

High energy water, having a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass, affects an increase in cellular health in relation to the various forms and functions involved.

Even temperature affects the ratio of energy per unit of mass, where cold water has a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass and warm or hot water has a lower ratio of energy per unit of mass.

A reduction in the size of water molecules affects a corresponding decrease in temperature and an increase in the ratio of energy per unit of mass.

Understanding of course that what I am referring to as energy is the underlying energy affecting both the form and function of physical structure. This underlying energy I refer to as non-linear time field frequency acceleration. Some might think of it as aether energy, zero point energy etc.

Water is not simply water, as there are various states of water in terms of the ratio of energy affecting the form and function of the water itself. The higher the ratio of energy associated with the water the more effective is the water in maintaining and or providing beneficial effects.

Consequently there are health benefits to energized water, despite an inadequate understanding of the dynamics involved.

Carbon this and carbon that and don’t leave any carbon footprints in the sand.

Too much carbon they tell us, climate change is all about carbon and we are to blame.

All those cars and trucks leaving carbon in their wake. So get out of your car and ride a bike or take the bus.

But is carbon really the problem or is it something else, something like oxygen.

Hello, what’s this about oxygen? How could oxygen be a problem?

If you have a shortage of oxygen you most certainly do have a problem. A little hard to breathe without enough oxygen.

Dead zones in the ocean, a shortage of oxygen in the water. And water with a concentration of less than 30% oxygen gets you a whole lot of dead fish.

On top of this the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere is dropping. And when it gets down to 13% there are going to be a lot of dead people, not to mention all the dogs, cats, horses and cows etc.

Unfortunately our atmosphere is slowly escaping into space. Something most people don’t seem to realize.

The oxygen content of our atmosphere has been dropping for a long time and now stands at just a bit under 20%.

So why are we so wrapped up with carbon and climate change?

Because someone told us we could fix the problem by reducing the carbon content of the atmosphere……..you can? Sure someone told you this, but is it possible to effectively reduce the carbon content of the earth’s atmosphere?

Sure we can improve air quality on a local level and we should, but can we effect the planet’s atmosphere to any measurable degree?  And in turn will this have any effect on climate change?

Even if you do reduce the carbon content a tiny bit you have done nothing to improve the oxygen content……the oxygen content of the atmosphere will still continue to decline.

The total carbon content of our atmosphere is a tiny fraction of 1%, yet it is loudly proclaimed that this is a threat to the health of the planet, but not a word about the declining oxygen content.

Climate change is not something you fix, unless of course you can adjust the energy of the sun and you can’t.

It is a dynamic relationship between the sun and the planets that drives climate and climate change, but this is not an acceptable explanation due to the fact that there is absolutely nothing any of us can do to change such a situation.

Regardless of what we do climate change will continue to revise the condition of our earth’s biosphere.

Anyone reading the book Unity will encounter my views regarding the use of static linear terms attempting to evaluate a dynamic universe.Not something you want to try while balancing a full cup of coffee.

For some unknown reason the non-absolute nature of our linear terms seems to escape the attention of most people where they think they can apply terms such as seconds and meters in attempting to determine the age and size of universe.Of course such terms are very handy and seemingly adequate for the purposes of trade and commerce, but to apply these same terms in attempting to discern the age and or size of universe is an impossible task.

How so?  Because no two seconds are of the same absolute duration nor are any two meters of the same absolute length, which means that each and every second is of a slightly different duration and every meter is of a slightly different length.On top of this we are confronted with a dynamic universe which is continuously expanding at an accelerative rate of expansion.

Oh boy, don’t we have fun.   And many honestly believe the speed of light remains constant for periods measured in millions and billions of years, whereby it might be possible to determine the age and size of universe based on the constancy of light speed.

Here we come to another basic problem, as it is also assumed that light is in fact in linear motion much like a train or bus. Therefore light speed is determined on the basis of the duration of time it takes light to travel one meter, which is 1/299,792,458ths of a second.

But this particular speed of light is a fixed measure due to the uncertainty regarding the exact speed of light. It would seem that the speed of light was not very cooperative in assuring all concerned that the speed was in fact constant, as it kept changing.

To put an end to any confusion or misunderstanding it was agreed that the exact speed of light would be fixed at exactly 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of any further considerations.

It is also believed by most that time remains constant regardless of your position in space whereby it might be possible for the speed of light to be constant across the breadth and depth of universe.

How this should be possible in respect to a dynamic condition of universe is difficult to fathom, but that is the position taken by most scientists.So what we end up with is a tidy figure representing the age and the size of universe but having no corresponding relationship to the actual age or size of the universe, which begs one to ask why this should be tolerated. After all it is science isn’t it? Or is it?

If no two seconds are of the same absolute duration and no two meters are of the same absolute length and the size of universe keeps changing along with the value of time how should it be possible to determine the age and size of universe on the basis of seconds and meters?It’s simply not possible.The idea of the universe being so many years old and having a radius of so many light years is in fact a bogus concept devoid of any scientific value or merit.