Page 1

Jump to Page 2
Jump to Page 3
25.1 Gravity, a Force? 

"Gravity is definitely a physical force, therefore it requires a physical explanation. Gravity must act through the intervening Aether, and if it is a fluid rather than a solid, as obviously it must be, then gravity must be caused by a pressure of this fluid from behind rather than a pull from in front, and such a pressure can only be caused by a flow of Aether in the direction of the gravitational force".

(Note: Gravity is described by others as being an effect and not a force).

Ether and Matter
By Krafft
530.1 K855, pg. 27

25.2 Gravity and Where it Manifests 

"Gravity acts as though all the planets mass were located at the center".

Isaac Newton

Music of the Spheres
By Murchie
523. M938 (1967)

Scientific American
Jan. 1967, pg. 128

25.3 Metagalaxies and Levitating Discs 

(Note: In book, Worlds-Antiworlds by Alfvén, he discusses gravity, radiation pressures, and the two opposing each other and their interactions...I found the dissertation applicable to gravity's dominance within a disc, even thought his chapter was involved only with a cosmological model).

"When radiation from annihilation between proton/antiprotons exerts "radiation pressure" which, if strong enough, will neutralize gravity or even overcome gravity and force A + B to repel each other".

Volume A = One volume emitting radiation

Volume B = One volume absorbing radiation.

Ambiplasma = Mixture of koinamatter and antimatter.

" The starting point in our model is an ambiplasma which fills a huge sphere..of trillion light-years".

(Note: An ambiplasma is, seemingly, the magnetized space plasma called Aether. The Aether is superconducting and no currents flow in it)...

Then he adds gravity and its attractive qualities...and its tendency to move toward the center, as all other multidirectional forces cancel..this model is in the process of collapsing, falling towards center at speeds proportional to its distance from the center...He adds, "The whole mass of the sphere would supposedly be clustered at that one spot. But, as we already noted in Chpt. II, this is an unrealistic conclusion". He adds, as a more realistic model in his opinion, "we could assume an uneven distribution of mass and some stray motion even in the primordial state. Even though deviations from the idealized model are minor at the outset of the contraction, the difference grows automatically by comparison with the more realistic model; the closer we get to the moment when the whole mass supposedly clusters at one spot, the greater the deviations. Yet long before this moment is reached, our idealized model has ceased to relate to what could be called a physical reality".

In this ambiplasma model he states the ambiplasma produces annihilation pressure by forces, long before the center is reached (Now, please imagine this center as the center of a flying disc since this will be our focus as we read on)..."Every part of the enormous plasma mass produces gamma rays and in consequence of magnetization, radio waves as well", he says "This radiation is absorbed and reflected within the ambiplasma as it seeks its way toward the surface of the sphere. This 'radiation pressure', he says, is a result of collisions between the photons and the body's atomic particles". He adds, "If the pressure is strong enough, it will neutralize gravitation entirely or even overcome gravitation and force A and B to repel one another". Force (A) is a volume which emits radiation and is absorbed by another, (B). He states, "radiation pressure repels and gravitation attracts". As soon as I heard that this pressure could neutralize gravity, I began imagining this cosmological description could be applied to an antigravity disc. It will be an interesting read from here, if you keep this disc in mind.

He continues, "as soon as annihilation becomes a significant factor in our ambiplasma sphere (Imagine it around a disc, as the author is talking 'cosmology', we are thinking "levitation'), the gravitational force will be apparently reduced... When the density (of the ambiplasma contraction) has increased even more, the radiation from annihilation becomes so intense as to neutralize the effects of gravitation altogether".

"Radiation pressure now increases at an ever faster rate and its force will be many times that of gravitation. Before long it will be strong enough to check the contraction and reverse the motion from inward to outward".

He then goes on to discuss the inward, outward movements of the Metagalactic sphere, explaining that the pulsating alternative model is "probably not the one that corresponds to the real world". (I find, this is exactly opposite of the latest insights. A pulsating, in-out, breathing Universe is a very viable concept, seeing that all things cycle, including the Universal cycles).

He goes on, "Ours has been a very simple model, based on the principle of symmetry between koinomatter", (common matter of earth), "and antimatter", (that which will separate far from koinomatter). "We have studied how a sphere (disc), filled with a magnetized, uniform ambiplasma develops under the influence of gravitation. We found that the sphere first contracts and then, under the influence of the radiation pressure generated by annihilation, begins to expand...the model must be further developed in at least two respects...first..nonuniformity"..."second...we assumed koinomatter and antimatter are in perpetual blend...but it is not so in our present world as it may have been in the primordial world. We must", he continues, "allow for processes that separate koinomatter from antimatter".

He asks, "What physical effects are capable of producing a separation of the type we are looking for?".

"Given certain general conditions, separation may be shown to ensue if a magnetized plasma is located in a gravitational field". (Note: Isn't there a magnetized plasma within the galaxies gravitational field?.

And, isn't a flying disc's magnetized plasma field within this galactic field or within its own field within the galactic field?

(Ref.6)And, as hinted in (Gravity's Power, below); the disc should be associated with the Universe or Galaxy field and not earths field).

He then begins to "separate layers of air around earth, explaining there will be a light and heavy layer, if hydrogen, which is 1/14th as much, in molecular weight, as is nitrogen and oxygen, is substituted for the normal elements around earth. This exercise relates to the lessening of gravity.

Let us now shift focus to an ambiplasma", (disc), under the influence of gravitation. Obviously, the earth's gravity serves little use to us now; we must think instead of a gravitational field in a galaxy... The ambiplasma is a mixture of light gas, consisting of electrons and positrons, and a gas 1,840 times heavier, consisting of protons and antiprotons".

(Note: That the difference in weighs is much greater than that between hydrogen and nitrogen. Gravitation will therefore greatly concentrate the (proton-antiproton plasma, he calls it the heavy ambiplasma) but has only a negligible effect on the (light ambiplasma).

(Ref. 2) What happens to this mixed ambiplasma if we insert a vertical current in a direction opposite to the gravitational force, or, as B. Fuller has shown, since gravity is 90 degrees from the EM axis in his tetrahedra, this 90 degree angle should be also considered?


(Ref. 4) A current in a plasma makes the charged particles move-

A. the positive in the direction of flow,

B. the negative in the opposite direction.

C. An "upward" current in the light ambiplasma induces upward motion in the positrons and

D. downward motion in the electrons, with the boundary between the light and heavy ambiplasma as their target. Meanwhile, in the heavy ambiplasma,

E. the current moves the negative antiprotons downward,

F. while the positive protons head upward toward the boundary with the light ambiplasma.

G. The border area is the meeting place for the electrons from above and the protons from below; in other words,

H. the two koinomatter particles are collecting there.

A. At the same time the antimatter, or the positrons and antiprotons, are being far removed from this rendezvous.


G. At the boundary, therefore, we get an area where the koinomatter of ambiplasma is concentrating.

The process is highly suggestive of electrolysis, in which the conduction of an electric charge through a solution liberates certain substances in the solution.

If the current is in the opposite direction or downward direction,

G. the boundary will be a collecting place for antimatter rather than koinomatter.

The existence of an electric current does not introduce a new assumption, but is a consequence of our earlier assumption that the ambiplasma is magnetized. The motions of a magnetized ambiplasma must, as a matter of course, induce electric currents. Indeed, we could say that, by assuming magnetized plasma, we have also assumed that electric currents flows in it".

(Note: This is an incorrect assumption of a superconducting plasma. Only the scalar components (Ref. 3) are active in it as per):

Tom Bearden  and

David Hudson 

Continuing, "Magnetic fields and electric currents are so intimately associated that it is impossible to think of one without the other"...

(Note: Unless, of course, the electromagnetic (EM) components are canceled by bucking, bifilar, counterwound, harmonic frequency coils, eliminating them. But, in this case, we may want to keep the electric and magnetic components of an EM generating disc power source, if it can be made to properly influence the Aether (of earth proximity only) and the plasma of space which is superconducting, or, cancel the EM and use superconducting scalar to influence the ether. Which ever method works, matters little).

"Since, generally speaking, an electric current should have a vertical component ( He adds, ignoring only the special case where current flows in an exactly horizontal direction)",

(Note: What I believe he is saying can best be explained by Tom Bearden  Then go to "More on scalars"), concerning current direction, scalar longitudinal waves and transverse waves).

He goes on, "we can account for a separation taking place under very general conditions. The process described is far from being the only one which can achieve separation. For instance, there need be no direct dependence on an electric current.

If a plasma in a gravitational field has a magnetic field which shows a certain heterogeneous pattern, (Ref. 5),

the electrons and protons may both move in the same direction, while the positrons and the antiprotons take off in the opposite direction. This means that the koinomatter and antimatter in an ambiplasma are separated by "gliding apart".

"When different processes of these types are studied, it emerges that they ought to be extremely effective on a small scale- small, that is, from a cosmological point of view". (As in a levitating disc).

By Hannes Alfvén
523.12 Al(el, not one) 29

(Note: We have taken a cosmologically complicated subject and made it even more complicated with a transposition into a small scale description of the dynamics of levitation. We have simply inserted a disc into its proper place in the dynamics of an already existing, dynamic Aether and space plasma).


Ref.1 above: Where do we put the disc?

Ref. 2 above: What happens to the particles in the above placement?

Ref. 3 above: Shall we use EM or pure Scalar potentials? How is Scalar potentials made with a counterwound coil? The Binary Resonant System of Harvey D. Norris, found on 11/30/00, as I attempted to envision it.

Ref. 4 above: What is the sequential positions of the light / heavy ambiplasma, disc, magnetic and electric field of the disc, galactic magnetic field?

Ref. 5 above: What is a heterogeneous pattern?

Are the areas under observed, grounded disc's, burned by gamma rays or annihilated by antimatter (positrons and antiprotons)? Is an observing human being, too close to a grounded disc, made sick by gamma rays or has some of his atoms been annihilated by antimatter (positrons and antiprotons? These high intensity rays, which I suspect all so-called seen discs have, are extremely dangerous to human flesh, hence, I suspect anyone stating that they mhave been close to a levitating disc and have not suffered burns or radiation of the above, is simply not telling us the whole story).

Ref. 6 above and Ref. 6 in Gravity's Power, below.

Why it is important to align a gravity disc with Universe or Galaxy fields and not earth's.

These questions need to be resolved by further research.

Copyright. Robert Grace. 1999.

25.6 A Case in which the Uncertainty Principle of Energy Conservation need not apply 

..."The particles (Note: frequencies) that are found by disintegrating atoms in this way, (neutrons striking the nuclei of uranium 235), are neutrons, protons and electrons. The particles (frequencies) of these kinds that come from a particular atom were not created in the process of disintegration but in some sense were there all the time".

(Note: Of course the frequencies were there all the time).

"It is difficult to make this notion of preexistence precise for a quantum-mechanical system",

(Note: But not for a musical preexistent system),

"but at least two important criteria are satisfied. One is that properties of the atom such as charge and mass are very nearly equal to the sums of these quantities for the particles (frequencies) that are found in this way.

The other is that the number of neutrons, protons and electrons obtained from a given atom is the same even if we use different low-energy probes to examine the atom. On this basis it seems reasonable to conclude that these particles (frequencies) are not created in the process of analyzing the atom but were there all along. It seems, furthermore, to be the case that ordinary matter contains only these 3 particles (frequencies, i.e. Keely's postulate). The sense of this is that, if we analyze matter with probes whose kinetic energy is well below the threshold for creating one of the other known particles (frequencies), none of these particles (frequencies) will be found. An apparent exception comes if we use probes made of antimatter ("negative electricity", i.e. Keely), such as antiprotons. In this case, even if the antiprotons have a very low kinetic energy, they can still "annihilate", (See above Metagalaxies and Levitating Discs), with the protons and neutrons in matter, producing many of the unstable particles (frequencies). I do not think this vitiates the analysis, since it does not seem useful to consider the annihilation products as preexistent in the proton and antiproton, (I do). Thus if we restrict our considerations to that domain of physics where the average kinetic energy per particle (all energetic frequency (energy) has mass), is small compared with the muon rest energy, which is the smallest energy necessary to create one of the unstable particles (frequencies), the only particles that appear in real form is the electrons, protons and neutrons. In addition to these there are particle-like photons (beat frequencies of even higher fundamentals), which compose light beams, whose properties are well understood (don't count on it), and the neutrinos, which interact so weakly with matter they are unimportant for Thales' problem".

(Note: Neut.rino's neutrality is the unmeasurable center or neutral place we often call scalar these days so let us understand the power of neutral)...

..."as far as we know only in cosmic rays and man-made accelerators are energies high enough to create the other unstable particles"...

..."It follows that any effect of these other particles ( anti-matter "virtual" frequencies) on the properties of ordinary matter can come only through their occurrence in 'virtual" states (of course). That is to say, it is possible to create the other particles ( anti-matter "virtual" frequencies) for a very short time",

(Note: To solve this use repeatable, cycling, iterative pulse),

(Note: Consider hetrodyning lower fractal harmonics to reach higher frequencies, as all nature is harmonic, we can readily see, as in Mayan Cosmology, the number 2 is resonant with 20, 200, 2,000, 20,000, 200,000 etc., and then introducing "dissonant" beat frequencies to influence the next higher octave. It has to be dissonant to disturb the harmonics of gravity, for gravity is completely harmonic which implies it does no warping of space, conversely, it perfects matter. Fuller spoke of gravity as a high tensegrity, high frequency sphere. I have theorized in 35 Big Picture, that the ultimate shape encompassing all other 'lesser' angular platonic shapes is the perfect sphere, an aggregate of angles (angels) approaching infinity. If the ultimate shape is the sphere and gravity is the sphere also, then gravity is a perfector of lesser matter.ial shapes).

Continuing with the text:

"in which case, on the basis of the Uncertainty Principle, energy conservation need not apply. There are of course effects of such short-time creation and annihilation of particles (frequencies). For example, the creation and destruction of pions (groups of frequencies) is mainly responsible for the nuclear force".

(Note: And what do we have when we destroy the nuclear force?)


Scientific American
May 1967, pg. 130

25.7 Gravity and Parity 


Super Symmetry Theory postulates that matter and antimatter were equal in quantity and property throughout the universe.
The following confirmations show this is not the case.

Below, are two excerpts from Stanford's SLAC Facility and the KEK "B Factory" Accelerator System, both of which analyze data to detect differences between matter and antimatter. On August 8, 2001 a report was issued that confirmed my 1998 hypothesis that "Asymmetric" CP violations were taking place between matter and anti matter, in the form of neutrinos with a 2/3 structure. If B mesons and anti-B mesons are the same thing as K-mesons and pi-mesons that Isaac Asimov speaks about, below, then I forward that my (Notes, 1998) explain The Super Asymmetry/Symmetry Theory of the 2/3 relationships within the neutrino and its relationship to gravity, universal asymmetry/symmetry of consciousness and music, in the form of the spiral of perfect 5ths and the spiral of perfect 4ths, confirmed on August 8, 2001 by the SLAC and KEK experiments.

11/1/01 My Updated Conclusions:

1. The basis of matter and antimatter is an asymmetric/symmetric relationship.
2. The neutrino is a synthesis of 2 plus 3 units.
3. The basic asymmetric/symmetric structure is the neutrino.
4. CP violation is caused by this 2/3 relationship.
5. Matter dominates the universe because of this 2/3 relationship.
6. Gravity should be the result of the inverse, implosive relationship 2/3 x 3/2 = 1 quantum, based upon Phi.
7. The spiral of perfect 4ths and 5ths should be the musical analog of the 2/3 x 3/2 = 1 quantum relationship.
8. Consciousness should be the psychic analog of the 2/3 x 3/2 = 1 quantum relationship in the form of the torus.


SLAC Experiment
August 8, 2001
BaBar Physicists find a striking difference between matter and antimatter.

An international collaboration of physicists conducting experiments at the Department of Energy's Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) has discovered a second fundamental difference between the behavior of matter and that of antimatter. They observed this intriguing phenomenon - known as charge-parity (CP) violation and first seen decades ago in experiments with another particle - in disintegrations of heavy, short-lived subatomic particles called B mesons. The collaboration reported its result in a paper submitted July 5 for publication in Physical Review Letters, a leading scientific journal. The paper has since been accepted for publication.

The international collaboration includes more than 600 scientists and engineers from 75 institutions in Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, Russia and the United States. They built and have been operating a sophisticated 1,200-ton detector, named BaBar, that was used to make the discovery.

The detector records subtle distinctions between decays of B mesons and those of their antimatter counterparts, called anti-B mesons. Both are more than five times heavier than protons and survive just over a trillionth of a second. Physicists employed the detector to observe an unmistakable difference, or asymmetry, between the rates at which B and anti-B mesons decay into a special set of specific final states. From these measurements, they calculated a parameter called sin 2b (sine two beta), which expresses the degree of asymmetry between matter and antimatter. A non-zero value of this parameter gives clear evidence for CP violation among B mesons.

The mysterious phenomenon of CP violation was first discovered in a 1964 experiment led by James Cronin and Val Fitch at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Their group observed this behavior in decays of subatomic particles called K mesons, which are about one tenth as heavy as B mesons and live much longer; the two physicists shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery.

Several observations of CP violation have since occurred in experiments with K mesons. But until the recent BaBar discovery, no other subatomic particles had clearly exhibited this exceedingly rare phenomenon. Having this second striking example of CP violation should aid theorists trying to understand what causes it.

Scientists are interested in this puzzling behavior because it can help explain the abundance of matter in the Universe. In 1967, Russian theorist Andrei Sakharov used CP violation to suggest how the present matter-dominated Universe could have emerged from one that contained exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter during the earliest moments of the Big Bang.


KEK Experiment
Why is CP Violation Important?

If we look out in space as far as we can see, all evidence says that the universe is made up of matter - protons, neutrons, electrons. In the laboratory it is possible to create antimatter (e.g., antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons) which appears to be identical to matter, except that in close contact with matter both can annihilate. Since we now believe that the universe was born with equal amounts of both, why should this change over the universe's lifetime? We now know that fundamental properties of matter (and antimatter) determine how the universe evolves and that at least some elementary particles must exhibit a property known as CP violation if the universe does indeed consist dominantly of matter. Simply put, matter and antimatter do not behave identically.


1998 Data:

..."there seems no easy way of involving gravity with parity. There is no way of dividing objects into two groups, one with one kind of gravitational property and the other with the opposite kind.

All object of a given mass possess the same intensity of gravitational interaction of the same sort. Any two objects with mass attract each other. There seems no such thing as "gravitational repulsion",

(Note: Intuitively you know there is but you just don't know how to see yet),

"(and according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity there can't be such a thing). It is as though, in gravity, we can say only that E + E = E or + x + = +.

To be sure, there is a chance that in the field of subatomic physics there might be some objects with mass that possess the usual gravitational properties and other objects with mass that possess gravitational properties of the opposite kind ("antigravity"). In that case, the chances are that it would turn out that two antigravitational objects",

"attract each other just as two gravitational do; but that an antigravitational and a gravitational object would repel each other".

(Note: You can feel this is true if you have lots of music knowledge and understand harmonics...luckily for you, half of my pages are music study. For parity only means mirror image harmonics).

"The situation with respect to the gravitational interaction would be the reverse of the electromagnetic one",

(Note: Think about what is considered 'reverse' in music. Can you say, Circle of Perfect Fifths, Circle of Perfect Forths or inversions or mirror symmetries?).

"(like gravities would attract and unlike gravities would repel) but, allowing for that reversal, parity would still be conserved",

(Note: I agree that parity (mirror image harmonics) is conserved because if it isn't, it wouldn't be harmonics anymore would it! may substitute the word gravity for the word frequency, also, you may begin to see that parity will break down somewhere beyond the measurements of machines).

He goes on, "The trouble is, though, that the gravitational (frequency) interaction is so much more feeble (beats) than the electromagnetic interaction that gravitational interactions (beat interactions) of subatomic particles (frequencies) are as yet impossible to measure (but not impossible to calculate musically) and a sub-tiny attraction can't be differentiated from a sub-tiny repulsion. So the question of parity (mirror image harmonics) remains in abeyance.

As the twentieth century wore on, it came to be recognized that the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions were not the only ones that existed. Subatomic particles (frequencies) involved something else. To be sure, electrons had negative charges and protons had positive charges and with respect to this, they behaved in accordance with the rules of electromagnetic interactions (musical interactions also). There were other events in the subatomic world, however, that had nothing to do with electromagnetism. There was, for instance, some sort of interaction involving particles (frequencies) , whether with or without electric charge, that showed itself only in the super-close quarters to be found within the atomic nucleus. Did this "nuclear interaction" involve parity?

Every subatomic particle has a certain quantum-mechanical property that can be expressed in a form involving three quantities, x, y and z. In some cases, it is possible to change the sign of all three quantities from positive to negative without changing the sign of the expression as a whole. Particles in which this is true are said to have "even parity".

In other cases, changing the signs of the three quantities does change the sign of the entire expression and a particle of which this is true is said to have "odd parity".

Why even and odd? Well, an even-parity particle can break up into two even-parity particles or two odd-parity particles, but never into one even-parity plus one odd-parity. An odd-parity particle, on the other hand, can break up into an odd-parity particle plus an even-parity one, but never into two odd-parity or two even-parity particles. This is analogous to the way in which an even number can be the sum of two even numbers or of two odd numbers, but never the sum of an even number and an odd number, while an odd number can be the sum of an even number and an odd number, but can never be the sum of two even numbers or two odd numbers.

But then a particle called the "K-meson" was discovered. It was unstable and quickly broke down into "pi-mesons'. Some K-mesons gave off 2 pi-mesons and some gave off 3 pi-mesons" (here's the 3/2 ratio again) "and that was instantly disturbing. If a K-meson did one, it aught not to be able to do the other. Thus an even number can be the sum of 2 odd numbers (10 = 3 + 7) and an odd number can be the sum of 3 odd numbers (11 = 3 + 7 +1), but no number can be the sum of two odd numbers. It would be like expecting a number to be both odd and even".

(Note: Even this is questionable: It seems a number (neutrino or 2/3 x 3/2 = 1, can be both odd and even- Asymmetric)

"It would, in short, represent a violation of the law of conservation of parity. Physicists therefore reasoned (uh oh) there must be two kinds of K-mesons; an even-parity variety ("theta-meson") that broke down into 2 pi-mesons, and an odd-parity variety ("tau-meson") that broke down into 3 pi-mesons.

This did not turn out to be an altogether satisfactory solution, since there seemed to be no possible distinction one could make between the theta-meson and the tau-meson except for the number of pi-mesons it broke down into. To invent a difference in parity for two particles identical in every other respect seemed poor practice".

(Note: So they were right on the edge of their measuring machines capabilities, and they concluded there were 4 types of interaction in atomic physics, and they were trying to figure out the 5th force here, which is consciousness or Existence or some call it empty space; a force of mind (human mind only) which breaks parity. And, moreover, from this point, the values reverse and become negative, indicative of "The Other Side", which is hidden, invisible, harmonic higher orders of inverted, reversed frequencies).

The Left Hand of the Electron
By Isaac Asimov
508.1 As425l(el)

25.9 Gravity, 5 Types 

"They break down the gravitational radiation into 5 types.

The first type is direct radiation (the type Einstein analyzed), generated by the source when it accelerates through space. The second type is "whump" radiation, generated when the source is gravitationally stressed. The third type is transition radiation, generated by time varying delays in the propagation of the source's ordinary nonradiative gravitational field. The forth type is focusing radiation, which arises when one part of the source focuses the nonradiative field of another part of the source. The last type is tail radiation, emitted when the nonradiative field is scattered backward in the region of focusing".

Scientific American
Nov. 1975, pg. 60

25.10 Gravity's Power 

..."The dominance of gravity in astrophysical events may seem paradoxical because at the atomic and nuclear levels gravity is by far the weakest of the 4 known forces in the universe. The 'weak" force involved in the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei is stronger than gravity by a factor of 10^25; the electromagnetic force, which hold atoms and molecules together, is stronger by a factor of 10^37, and the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together, is stronger by a factor of 10^39. On the astrophysical scale, however, the gravitational pull of huge numbers of atoms (10^57, in the case of the sun) combine efficiently to form one gigantic pull, whereas none of the other three forces can combine efficiently. Consequently, on the astrophysical scale gravity can overwhelm all other forces and establish itself as the one irresistible force in the universe".

(Ref. 6)(Note: Hence, the importance of aligning a gravity disc with Universe or Galaxy, harmonically. Also, could this be the reason we "expand our consciousness" to overcome the 3 earthly forces? Or should we "contract our consciousness" inward to the next inner level of psychic mind, wherein the next 3 forces are all higher than this dimension, hence, have overcome of themselves? Think.

And now you may begin to see the gravity of the situation. What is the opposite of gravity? Is it levity? Should I begin with a good joke? Is antigravity a joke of sorts? Maybe it is. Maybe antigravity is overcoming this worlds gravity through harmonically tuning to universe and "contracting" into Higher Mind, since the "Other Side" is higher than the world we live in here).

Scientific American
Nov. 1967, pg. 88

25.11 Gravitational Radius 

If, for any reason, you wish to know how to collapse an object, here is what happens:

"Gravitational radius is the radius of an electrically charged particle (frequency) considered to be gravitationally held together against the electrical forces tending to disrupt it".


"Gravitational radius defines a fundamental limiting dimension that increases with the mass of an object. If compressed below its gravitational radius (1.5 times) by any force, including gravity, an object will be collapsed by gravity to zero volume and infinite density. For a 200-pound man the gravitational radius (1.4 x 10^-23) centimeters is one 10-billionth the size of the nucleus of an atom. A 200-pound man compressed to that radius would have 10^58 times the density of nuclear matter. The density of the sun at its gravitational radius would be some 50 times nuclear densities. On the other hand, a hypothetical quasar (quasi-stellar object) of three trillion solar masses would have only two billionths the density of water if compressed to its gravitational radius. And the density of the universe at its gravitational radius is approximately the density actually observed. In other words, if the universe is finite...and if its mass were entirely contained within a radius of 10-billion light years, it should begin to collapse..."

25.13 Table. Gravitational Radius 


Gravitational Radius

Density at G.R. (Grams
per Cubic Centimeter)

Charged Particle

10^-33 cm.

8 x 10^72

200-pound man

2.9 kilometers

2 x 10^16

Quasar of 3 x 10^12

1 Light-year

2 x 10^-9

Solar Masses
Entire Universe

10-Billion Light Years


(Note: What is important here is the compression of matter by any force and its effects. How can this fact be used? John Worrell Keely, a man who was reported to have run machinery with sound harmonics and levitated a 6 ton sphere with the same principles, was reported to have said "the density of space is 960,000 times as dense as steel").

Scientific American Nov. 1967, pg. 91

Scientific American Feb. 1971, pg. 24


Page 1

Jump to Page 2
Jump to Page 3

More Thoughts on Gravity

Impossible Correspondence Index

Copyright. Robert Grace. 2000