Entries Tagged 'Unity' ↓

It would seem that our bodies need oxygen and the more oxygen the better.

Unfortunately a lot of hydrogen peroxide which is normally in rain water is lost before it gets to the ground due to pollution in the atmosphere.

Plants thrive on this stuff and so do we…….it’s in mom’s milk, so babies immune system gets what it needs.

In a diluted state it can be ingested to treat all kinds of ailments and disease, but not in chlorinated water.

Dr. Williams provides a great deal of information on this topic, but there is also a lot of conflicting information out there, because hydrogen peroxide is very cheap and cannot be patented…..no the drug companies do not want this catching on.

Food grade hydrogen peroxide is suitable for ingestion when diluted and I advise reading up on this before giving it a try.

http://educate-yourself.org/cancer/benefitsofhydrogenperozide17jul03.shtml

It should not be a big surprise as to why this works,  as hydrogen is essential to life and so is oxygen.

Together we have water, H2O, two of the most energized elements in existence.

And in the case of hydrogen peroxide we have H2O2 which is one extra atom of oxygen.

Nature runs circles around our half baked attempt to provide artificial remedies and keep in mind that hydrogen peroxide is not artificial, it is a naturally occurring component of our body chemistry.

This is a reprint from a post I did in March 2006 at

http://www.gravitycontrol.org/blog/2006/03/25/gravitomagentic-induction-of-gravitational-

This post is in response to a story originating from the European Space Agency.

This story is entitled; Towards a new test for general relativity, dated March 23, 2006 and has now been archived at the above site under Education.

It would appear that Tajmar & Matos, the scientists responsible, have demonstrated the underlying force we at Gravity Control refer to as Non-linear Time Field Frequency Acceleration, (ntffa).

When you look at the drawing on the above site you will notice the accelerative spin of the super conductive ring is opposite to the direction of the Gravitoelectric Field, which is to be expected.

The gravity of the super conductive ring is increasing as the ring accelerates, so this is not antigravity, but is in fact anti-antigravity. This is the exact opposite of antigravity where the gravity of a system would be decreasing relative to the field in which it is situated.

They make reference to gravitons, which are theoretical gravitational particles, but no such particles exist as gravity is merely a condition of field and does not itself move independent of the accelerating underlying field, (ntffa).

The fact that the effect is one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts is huge, as this indicates there is something wrong with Einstein’s perception of the situation.

It is my contention that there is a ratio of energy per unit of mass, in that the ratio of energy per unit of mass is different for every system of reference. This means that the ratio of energy per unit of mass is a relative consideration associated with the dynamic structure of all physical matter.

In that the super conductive ring is linearly accelerating, the underlying dynamic energy of the ring is decreasing in inverse proportion to the rate of linear acceleration, this accounts for this huge difference in Einstein’s theoretical prediction and the experimental results.

The experimental results reported to the ESA correspond directly to the condition of field associated with the underlying dynamics of the super conductive ring.

The linearly accelerating super conductive ring acts against the underlying field in which the test is run, which is the field of the Earth.

The linear acceleration of the ring is resistant to a further increase in acceleration while the non-linear acceleration of (ntffa) is non-resistant to a further increase in non-linear acceleration. Therefore the ratio of energy per unit of mass associated with the ring decreases in inverse proportion to the increase in its linear acceleration. This affects an increase in both the gravitoelectric field and the gravitomagnetic field, which may seem a bit confusing to some.

It is important to note that the underlying force of field (ntffa) does not radiate, but is focused to the center of field, as what radiates is a factor of resistance corresponding to a differential in the underlying force. In this respect the factor of resistance increases isometrically from the center of field.

What has occurred here is that the linear acceleration of the ring has decreased the underlying dynamics of the ring, which in turn causes a decrease in energy and an increase in resistance relative to the field in which the ring exists.

An increase in resistance affects a decrease in energy and an increase in gravity, whereas a decrease in resistance affects an increase in energy and a decrease in gravity relative to the system of reference.

This experimental evidence supports the contentions of Gravity Control and the theoretical principles upon which Unity is designed.

When the super conductive ring is stationary, it cannot be slowed any further in terms of linear motion, which makes it appear that a controlled decrease in the gravity of the ring should not be possible other than by the process of freezing and the induction of an electrical charge, which is perfectly correct.

To effect a decrease in gravity the underlying force itself must be modulated in a controlled manner, whereby affecting the underlying dynamics in the desired manner.

An increase in (ntffa) can be achieved by the simple focusing of field relative to the system of reference, which in turn affects an increase in the underlying energy, a decrease in resistance and a decrease in gravity relative to the system of reference.

This would suggest that Einstein’s equation E=MC2 can only be applied in a very general sense, as there is a discrepancy in energy from one system to another, such as the various atomic elements.

Each element has its own energy potential corresponding to a specific ratio of energy per unit of mass, which means that Einstein’s equation is less than accurate.

Furthermore, when a molecular structure is reduced in size, even to the state of single atoms, each of the constituent portions is affected by an increase in energy, in relation to an underlying ratio of energy per unit of mass. This means the larger mass has less energy per unit of mass than if the same mass is reduced to a number of smaller portions.

The underlying energy of any system cannot be physically accessed in a manner which would cause energy to radiate, as energy does not radiate but is always focused to the center of field.

This spinning super conductor forms a field within the field of the Earth.

The linear acceleration of the super conductive ring is acting against the underlying non-linear acceleration of field, (aether), which supplies direct experimental evidence of (ntffa)’s (aether) existence.

We at Gravity Control give two thumbs up to Tajmar and Matos and thank them for their important contribution to field dynamics.

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.

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.

In the near two years plus fifty that it took David Barclay to assemble the seventeen chapters of Unity, although he did write an introduction, he revised it when he finished the book.  Here now, is the introduction to the theory of Unity: Ever since Newton formulated his gravitational theory we have accepted the simple contention that gravity increases to the center of the Earth and inversely decreases from the center of the Earth in a manner whereby the force of attraction decreases in proportion to the inverse square of the distance…Newton based his theory on some very fancy footwork, which necessitated the invention of calculus. And up to this point the apparent rational logic of his mathematical innovations are considered to be beyond question, as the numbers don’t lie. But despite the accuracy of the mathematical calculations the idealistic legitimacy of linear based geometry being capable of accurately describing the dimensional properties of our planet is extremely doubtful. Unity