That is one of the interesting results of considering
gravity control as opposed to outright levitation.
That there should be collision free or at least not
terminal damages from an in air crash. Now this is
all my own opinions and I'm not trying to convert
anyone so don't take it wrong, but its my own view and
the one I am working to resolve, and I'm certainly
open to changes that are superior to it.
With gravity control, you simply control the 'weight'
of mass, increasing the gravity of the mass to make it
heavier or decreasing the gravity of the mass to make
it lighter.
There will eventually come a balance point where the
gravity of the mass will cancel and the weight will
equal zero.
This is NOT LEVITATION at this point, since levitation
inicates a rising upward.
The mass would take on the properties of a giant
bubble, free to bound wherever it wants and I suspect
much like a buoyancy compensator in scuba diving or
ballast in a submarine, so too at differing heights
would you have to adjust the 'gravity' of the mass so
that it would remain at a given strata or level.
Before we can consider levitation we must understand
that weight of a mass is due to being CAUGHT IN THE
FLOW of the Earth's gravity field, like flies stuck on
a wire screen due to a wind blowing through it (in
this case into the earth).
This is the essence of the PUSH gravity theory, that
aether influx flows into holes in space where matter
aggregates or precipitates and is held not only
together but coupled to other mass in the area.
It is an important point, since we still have gravity
flowing INTO US which holds us together and gives us
an internal weight with respect to the neutral centers
of our mass aggregations.
That means that by achieving balance, you are simply
COMPENSATING for the gravity flow of the earth which
has your body caught in it, where your body or mass
would react like a big soap bubble.
You still have gravity flowing INTO YOU, but your
gravity reaction is balanced to counteract the local
effect on just your body.
Now, if you want to RISE in the air or LEVITATE, you
must decrease YOUR local gravity absorption so that
you, in a manner of speaking, RADIATE. Not I think
visible light but more analogous to an air ballast,
where the quantity and PRESSURE of air you have in the
tank will seek its own balance.
Meaning that by decreasing your internal 'gravity
pressure', your body will RISE TO THE EQUIVALENT
LEVEL, slowing its ascension as it achieves that
level.
Again, it brings us back to the reductionist
observation and the essence of Keely who refers to
pull (normal gravity that produces 'weight),
balance (canceled gravity for this bubble buoyant
effect)
and push (levitation as in being DRIVEN by radiating
or deflecting gravity).
I would be ecstatic to see controlled weight reduction
by preferably electrically reducing weight in a mass
while on a scale. I know there are mechanical
concepts and claims, but there seem to be more factors
involved with moving mass than with moving electrons.
That much more room for error.
The bottomline with true gravity control remains, does
it lose all weight as measured on a scale and the
killer proof is does it levitate to rise into the air
on its own?
When a mass is in this balance state it would have
minimal inertia and so bounce off other masses like a
big soap bubble.
When a mass was in the PUSH state and in flight it
would be RADIATING and also REPEL from other masses,
doubly so if those other masses were ALSO RADIATING.
So I think the effect with electron repulsion would be
the same as with gravity control when a mass was
caused to radiate.
--- Joseph Hiddink <vliegschotel@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, if there is more than one Moller "skycar" in
> the air, they need a computer to find out, where
> the other guy is, in order of to stay out of each
> other's way. However as I see it, your future
> transportation will have an elctrostatic field,
> and will repel anything else in the neighbourhood
> (or it will get repelled).
> I am thinking about a computer, that will run
> simple commands, use a CD with the local maps
> and will show your position. And the price will
> probably about $50,000. Or even less. If you could
> look into the work of the futurist, who drew
> the "Dick Tracy" cartoons, you will find a vehicle
> very much in the shape of future airplanes. And
> they will be noiseless,non-polluting and
> collision-proof. And the private transportation
> will be about the size of your family sedan.
>
> Joe Hiddink, vliegschotel@yahoo.com
>
>
> "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker@keelynet.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks!
>
> This article is about the Moller 'SkyCar'. He's been
> promoting this since I was in grade school but he
> makes good points about a computerized control
> system for all the flying vehicles that would be
> in the air;
>
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990529/imjustflyi.html
=====
=================================
Please respond to jdecker@keelynet.com
as I am writing from my work email of
jwdatwork@yahoo.com.........thanks!
=================================
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------