FAQ | Site Map Home |  About Us  |  Quest for Gravity Control |  Project Unity  |  References and Resources  |  Contact
 Community and Theory · Gravity Control Blog· Gravity Idealism Blog· Gravity Control Forums· Bookmark Us

 Introduction Welcome to gravity control .org. This site has been created to seek out serious researchers willing to demonstrate antigravity devices in front of our cameras to... more

 Promotional Trailers · Trailer 1 · Trailer 2

# FAQ

Q: What is gravity control?
A: It is a system to attract and repel gravity that makes it the most exciting form of propulsion since the wheel.

Q: How does gravity control work?
A: In just a few words, it works on the field within a field theory.

Q: Is gravity control intended for commercial use?
A: Gravity control will replace everything that today runs on oil and its derivatives.

Q: Will gravity control cause pollution?
A: No. Since there is no exhaust, there is no pollution.

Q: How can I volunteer my time to The Quest for Gravity Control?
A:If you think you can help please email and let us know what you can do or how you would like to get involved.

Q: What is a PoP/Proof of Principle statement?
A: POP means proof of principal, also sometimes referred to as proof of concept. A new invention requires a POP in the form of a simple demonstration that proves a theory of operation. A proof of principal demonstration can be as simple as a tabletop model that basically proves the operation of an invention. Every new idea must pass the POP stage to be recognized as more than just a theory. Because a theory is just a theory. A POP is hardware that proves the theory.

Q: How do I link to gravitycontrol.org?

Q: How would an anti-gravity environment affect the health of those within the apparatus and those observing its operation?
A: Those observing from the exterior of the system would not otherwise be affected by its operation, unless of course they ventured too close to the external shell where they could easily suffer an electrical shock, which should be considered dangerous.

Q: What would be the recreational spin-offs from this technology? i.e. hover cars, lev-trucks, or the hover board as depicted in one of the Back to the Future sequels?
A: Small craft would be a definite consideration, in relation to one or two passengers, as well as large cargo carriers, but they would not be in the form of cars and trucks, as no wheels or roads would be required. This would be of interest to those concerned with highway safety as these small craft would not suffer collisions. Each craft would be separated by a field barrier, where two dangerously approaching craft would simply be bounced away from each other without actually having made physical contact. Consequently, no damage is done. I'm sorry to report that I doubt the possibility of hover boards as depicted in the movies, being based on this technology.

Q: What happens inside the field of the operational model? How would you pilot a model by remote control if the internal field rejects external influence from outside its field?
A: In respect to remote control, this is a very important question, as remote communication would require the development of a radio control system involving field frequency modulation, which is something far beyond what we have today. I have mentioned this problem to SETI, as their existing technology confines their search to a single field of frequency. The chance of receiving a signal from this isolated field is limited and even if you should receive such a signal there is presently no known method by which to allow for an immediate reply. Initiating research and development in the area of inter field communications is perhaps even more important than the development of an aerospace system based on this technology. Being without a method of communication seems somewhat absurd at this point.

It must also be realized that inter field communications would automatically allow for what we now refer to as quantum computing, as a field frequency modulator is an essential component of any such system.

Q: Presently our navigation of space is based on the maximum speed that can be reached by a controlled explosion, but with this new technology, how would we know where we were going or how to get back?
A: To start, we would not require linear geometry, in relation to Kilometers or light years etc. as the field frequency of every system representing a space point contact is different. Therefore the navigation of space would be simplified dramatically, whereby it would be virtually impossible to get lost in space. Although you are faced with a seemingly infinite choice of destinations, each of those destinations corresponds to a field frequency value relative to that of your aerospace system, while at the same time you are also equipped with a seemingly infinite range of field frequency modulation. So you don't have to be a rocket scientist to navigate a star ship.

Q: I'm not sure I understand the concept, are we talking about interplanetary or interstellar travel? It is anything like the machine described in Carl Sagan Contact .
A: In relation to an aerospace system equipped with a field frequency modulator both interplanetary and interstellar travel is included. There is no half measure technology involved; it either the whole ten yards or nothing worth pursuing. No, I'm sorry; its unlike Carl Sagan Contact and does not include Ms. Foster. Carl tried to tie too much to a single function, in relation to a nuts and bolts machine.

Gravity Control dot org is a collaborative project made possible through the assistance of Vancouver SEO Company Reactorr digital marketing.

Gravity Control is a matter of time.
Anti-gravity technology research in electromagnetic propulsion and other technologies is under development, and we would like to document its discovery.