Gravity & Anti-gravity

In the book Unity by David Barclay, which is a free download at www.gravitcontrol.org, (see link), it states very clearly that gravity is not itself a force of any kind, but is in fact a dynamic response to the condition of field as determined by non-linear time field frequency acceleration.

If gravity is not a force it exerts no influence, therefore gravity itself is incapable of holding the planets in orbit around the sun.

There is no such thing as gravitational acceleration as gravity itself does not accelerate, in fact it does absolutely nothing. Gravity is a word used to describe our observations, but in the context of field dynamics gravity itself has no meaning, whereby we might just as easily dispense with the use of the word gravity.

But for the sake of explanation gravity is an inherent function of field dynamics in relation to a dynamic response.

Non-linear time field frequency acceleration is symmetrically focused to the center of the earth's core and to the center of every system of universe, whereby the acceleration of this underlying force of energy provides the path of least resistance allowing for free fall.

It is commonly assumed that gravity increases toward the center of the earth's core, but this is neither rational or logical, as the earth represents a stable field structure. Therefore we might consider that the internal dynamics of the earth are inversely proportional to the external dynamics, where gravity not only decreases isometrically from the surface curve of the earth but also decreases symmetrically to the center of the earth's core from the surface curve. This configuration gives us a dynamically balanced field structure.

And in the context of the above statement we find the secret to gravity control and or anti-gravity, as it is the underlying force of non-linear time field frequency acceleration which determines the structural dynamics of the earth.

If you are at all familiar with relativity you might realize that the earth exists relative to the sun, while the sun exists relative to the earth, in relation to two completely different relative states. Therefore the sun that remains relative to the earth exists within the unified field of the earth, which gives us a field within a field.

In relation to the moon remaining relative to the earth, the moon also exists as a field within the unified field of the earth, which is another field within a field.

It is a relative differential in the underlying force of non-linear time field frequency acceleration which allows the earth to maintain a stable orbit around the sun and for the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.

However, if we were to build a modular unified field system capable of modulating the underlying force of non-linear time field frequency acceleration, the earth would exist relative to the modular system where the earth would exist as a field within the field of the modular craft in relation to those operating the craft from within. But to the observer on the ground the modular craft would exist relative to the earth and exist as a field within the field of the earth. Two completely different circumstances and two completely different view points.

No wonder we cannot match the technical ability of extraterrestrial saucer craft, as they are not restricted by the mechanics we employ for the purpose of flight.

There is an actual time field differential existing between the extraterrestrial craft and the intercepting fighter jet, which would make it quite impossible to catch such a craft or shoot it down.

If we are to develop advance aerospace systems we have no choice but to rethink our position, as our limited perceptions of such systems leaves us completely in the dark. We have to think outside the box. In fact we have to forget the box and start over from scratch, something we seem to find extremely difficult to even consider let alone do.

We can control gravity, that's not a problem, but can we accept a whole new set of rules in relation to the principles involved?

Can we accept the simplicity of a truly dynamic system?

No fuel, no batteries, no engine, just a simple magnetic frame allowing for the modulated focus of the underlying force. It can't get much simpler than that, but it would seem that the simplicity of the idea overwhelms us and leaves many shaking their heads in disagreement. This is impossible they scream, it defies natural laws.

If we are going to venture forth into space, in terms of manned missions to the stars and inter-planetary colonization, we had better wake up and smell the coffee.

Interstellar space travel is not a new idea or a new thing, as extraterrestrials have been doing it for a very long time, but for us it is a brand new day.

I would urge you to have a look at Project Unity which is also at www.gravitycontrol.org

Project unity is a basic field frequency modulator, which is the basic drive system for an advanced aerospace system, a saucer type craft. This same system also allows for instantaneous transformation, which is your basic simultaneous transport to wherever you want to go. And yes, simultaneous transport is faster than light, in fact simultaneous does not have a speed, its just that quick, blink out & blink in.

Coming here, going there

Whether it is ET wanting to come here or us wanting to go there, it would seem obvious that we here on planet Earth still don't get it, otherwise we might already have realized that our modern science is less than adequate.

We have made the assumption that space travel is restricted by the speed of light, whereby we are assured that interstellar space travel is beyond reason at this time. Therefore it is firmly asserted that it would be impossible for space travelers from other star systems to visit our Earth or even our solar system.

But how valid is this well established belief? Are we even sure that light does in fact have a linear speed?

We assume that it should be possible to measure the speed of light in a manner similar to determining the speed of a train or bus. We know the speed of a train or bus is measured in terms of miles per hour whereas the speed of light is measured in terms of meters per second, but its the same idea. We assume that light travels in a linear manner just as trains, buses and rockets travel in a linear manner.

If we examine the method by which the speed of light is measured we will find that the basic idea is to measure the time it takes for light to travel one meter in a vacuum and at the present time it is agreed that it takes exactly 1/299,792,458ths of a second for light to travel one meter in a vacuum. This translates to a speed of exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.

Now, the problem here is that we are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of a train or bus, as we intend to use the speed of light to measure both the size and age of universe. So we are not talking about some localized duration of time or a localized length of distance.

As there are no absolute numerical values associated with any physical action or interaction, we must understand that each of the 299,792,458 portions of a second cannot be of the same absolute duration. Furthermore no two meter rules are of the same absolute length.

So how accurate is our evaluation of light speed? It is described as an exact speed, yet it is not an absolute value, it is an approximate value.

We impose this evaluation on the size and age of universe, whereby we assume that time in terms of seconds and distance in terms of meters remains equivalent throughout the entire universe. This allows us to determine the universe to be roughly 14 billion years old and the distance from our Earth to the furthest reaches of universe to be roughly 14 billion light years.

Yet, we know that the universe is expanding and that the rate of expansion is accelerating, whereby the size of universe is continuously increasing at an ever increasing rate. So it would seem logical that the very fabric of space and time is being stretched, which would mean that the length of the meter is increasing with distance and time is slowing with distance.

So what is the age and size of universe? Do we have any idea? It would seem not.

Another question we must ask ourselves is whether light is actually in linear motion or is the apparent motion of light simply a condition of field associated with the dynamic condition of universe remaining relative to our planet Earth?

If light is not in linear motion it would appear that we have taken a wrong turn, as our evaluation of universe is based on the linear motion of light.

We might therefore consider the possibility that the apparent motion of light is due to the non-linear condition of the field in which we exist, in terms of a unified field system. And if this is the case neither we or ET are restricted by the speed of light, in relation to interstellar space travel.

What we are actually restricted by is our existing perception of universe and our limited understanding of the scientific principles involved.

I would suggest that it is time to move forward..........