<Tuesday's sermon>
Personally, I think it is a bogus premise to assume that Newton’s laws are not being violated when this EM device is speculated to be “hovering” a few feet above the surface of Earth. As Dave rightly points out if the “hovering” device were to be situated outside the influence of Earth’s gravity field the contraption would most certainly be caught in the act of accelerating – which presumably then means it’s violating Newton’s laws. My point is that if the EM device is presumably breaking Newton’s laws outside of Earth’s gravity field I don’t believe we can conveniently insert an exception to the rule and suddenly proclaim that within Earth’s gravity field the same EM device isn’t breaking those same laws. That makes absolutely no logical sense to me. It strikes me as a fudge factor. Nature, specifically our perception and quaint understanding of gravity fields, appears to be playing a very subtle trick on us. It’s most likely due our own ignorance hampering a better understanding of Newton’s laws being played out here, specifically the phenomenon we call gravity. Regarding gravity, our human bi-pedal brains have a very difficult time trying to grasp and understand the consequences of the simple but paradoxical equation “1/r^2”. IMHO, it is generally not perceived (or for that matter accepted) that as we stand on the surface of Earth that we are in a constant state acceleration. The point being: If we are accelerating why aren't we moving? However, according to Einstein: gravity and acceleration are precisely the same phenomenon being played out in different spatial fields. Our human perception is used to perceiving the phenomenon of acceleration as OBSERVING an object move, or more technically speaking the velocity of the object observed in a constant state of changing. We observe changes in velocity (acceleration) in flat spatial fields. But if you start bending (or subsequently concentrate) those spatial fields, such as what “1/r^2” does when approaching a large mass like Earth, it is possible to play tricks on our human perception. For example we perceive (and subsequently believe) stationary objects are at rest on the surface of earth, and that they have weight. It is ludicrous for our bi-pedal brains to perceive such stationary objects possessed with "weight" as accelerating, or moving. But according to Einstein such objects are accelerating. Therefore they are also in a constant state changing their velocity. That means they are moving! But we don't perceive them as moving! It's the curvature of the spatial field that results in such objects not appear to be moving (form our perception) which our bi-pedal brains are having a horrible time with. We are caught in a nasty paradox for which we have been trying to resolve with little success for centuries. For example, one of the most profound paradoxes we try not to think too much about is that if it takes a constant expenditure of energy (fuel) to keep a helicopter hovering 10 feet above the surface of earth – well then, where’s the energy (fuel) coming from that keeps gravity turned constantly “on” and us firmly planted on the surface of Earth? Obviously, we are missing something important here. ;-) Personally, I suspect one the subtle points we may have been glossing over is our ignorance of the consequences of manipulating spatial fields. If we can learn how to manipulate them out of the normal flat spatial planes that we typically exist in, and do so without having to consume gigawatts of energy, I think we would be in for a big surprise. I can't say what's has been happing under wraps in black ops for decades, but as far as we are concerned we don’t yet know how to bend or concentrate 3D SPACE on the human scale in the same manner that large bodies of mass have been bending spatial fields on the planetary scale since the beginning of time. But if we could learn how to do it, it will likely reap many untold benefits. Anti-gravity for example. Alas, this is a tough one. For millions of years our bi-pedal brains have had a difficult time wrapping around the concept of not falling out of the tree. Kan't be done, we tell ourselves. Our instincts quite rightly tell us we will most surely drop like a rock if we let go of the branch. ;-) But yeah, I think we can learn to let go of the branch. Eventually. </Tuesday's sermon> Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
