From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: October 24, 2004 10:22:35 AM PDT
Subject: Ken Shoulders question on how to explain charge clusters as EVOs
On Oct 24, 2004, at 6:27 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
I need a readily understood word to define a component of a passive, gravity resisting system.
It's not resisting gravity at all. It's shaping gravity into an anti-gravity field if needed by controlling both the sign of the residual micro-quantum random zero point pressure and how it is distributed in space. Do not use word "resistance" as it gives the wrong impression of irreversibility like thermal electrical resistance.
You have made it clear that an EVO is capable of warping space to produce a thrusting or traction producing effect that could be used against gravity.
Also never use "thrust" because that also gives the wrong idea of conventional impulse drive in which g-forces are felt locally by an observer on the EVO or the flying saucer etc. This is a true weightless warp drive! Think of it like a champion surfer riding a huge Tsunami wave in the Higgs Ocean that is the origin of the fabric of curved space-time. In true metric engineering, not Hal's wrong PV version, we control the Higgs Ocean to shape or tailor the Higgs Ocean to achieve the mission objective.
I need a commonly used word or phrase that defines the medium that the force is being applied against.
You are thinking about this in entirely the wrong way. Forget force. Einstein's Vision replaced gravity force with pure geometry. You cannot use classical ideas of Newton's force to really understand what is happening. Just think of a ball rolling on a landscape and we are changing the shape of the landscape of hills, valleys and mountain passes in the neighborhood of the ball to pilot it the way we want it to go. In the case of EVOs of course this is happening spontaneously without intelligent control.
In effect, the resistor afforded by space.
No, that is exactly the wrong picture. Do not think in terms of electrical resistance analogies.
I find the suggestion of dark anything to be repelled by most ordinary users, including straight physicists, and am looking for a substitute.
They are wrong. All the top physicists today use "dark energy". I don't know who you are talking to, but they do not know what they are talking about if they told you that. Tell them to talk to me and I will set them straight. Remember this is totally new physics and no one you have talked to understands it. What they thought they knew or even knew is not adequate for this new physics.
I would appreciate your input.