David Wilcock
02-22-2002, 10:18 PM
hi marc,
i'm responding late at night as i've just checked the email. the gravity
information came out of conversations with my friend joseph myers, who is a
licensed physical engineer. he mentioned that this anomaly of gravitational
cancellation is rarely discussed, just accepted, and his take on it was that
it represented a resonance point between the two opposing gravity-levity
forces. until now i had not heard what most thinkers consider this effect to
be caused by. this area is certainly "looser" than many others, probably
written in a flurry of activity as much of that writing from chapter 4
onward was done over three and a half weeks - and as you'll see in divine
cosmos, there are an estimated 500+ internet references and everything i say
in many of the chapters is backed up and footnoted.
thank you for the peer review - you see, in this field we don't have the
structures that the mainstream have in place. i am not embarrassed, because
you're the first person who was refined enough in thinking to see an
inconsistency. this is actually a sign of progress. what i'm attempting to
put together requires a very broad knowledge of a variety of subjects and
the ability to instantly recall them at will. so bear in mind that i have
had to be an expert on each category that you read about, many of which you
say you are not aware of. trust me, once the whole trilogy is complete it
will be quite airtight - and i've had little errors pointed out by many
gifted thinkers in the past. however, the overall model is extremely solid
and it is simply on my shoulders to communicate it well enough that the
reader sees what i see. and interestingly, i often tell people to skip right
from chapter 3 to chapter 9, since the engineering data is already difficult
enough for many readers.
if you have difficulty accepting the idea of a gravity-levity balance then
you should be aware that it is now being acknowledged in the mainstream that
gravity must have an oppositional force. i have a study from some folks in
india that mentions how the sun is 99.86 percent of the mass of the solar
system yet the planets are not attracted into it. you can rebut with "yes,
that's centrifugal force," but once you examine the data from stoneking
resonance and the nineveh constant, you see that the solar system functions
as an oscillating "physical vacuum" system that is far too precise to be
accounted for by any present theories. many of these points were not mature
in convergence iii, as i had not finished the book but rather put out what i
had done up until then since i was about to be on art bell.
the best person to read about "push gravity" theory is walter wright, who is
featured well on the keelynet website. he discusses various observations
from the moons of saturn, et cetera that help to support his theory.
the key point to remember is that we're not going to be satisfied with the
game of discarding anomalies anymore. gravity as an aetheric flow simply
makes more sense once the unified model is seen, and i can't take the time
to re-articulate such an integrated model here. everything in ciii is just a
drum-roll for what you'll see in divine cosmos, which will probably be of
especially strong use to someone of your temperment. so hang in there...
meantime i'm still waiting to hear back on this website thing, hopefully it
will be resolved by monday.
btw: i can't stress enough that richard and i are in complete agreement
about the nibiru 2003 prophecy. those who have read my books should see how
under-developed of a theory it is, to say the least.
it is possible, based on these suggestions and my own musings, that with the
final polish of divine cosmos coming out so amazingly well that i might
truncate convergence iii since there still is about another 60+ pages of
content that i need to insert, and the "bell" for 300 pages has already
rung.
peace be with you -
- david
----- original message -----
from: "marc martin" <marc@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ad1kwb5aiqrzzlrabk5vbwftg3xr4vkwafwxr3 qqwr0tltopyxre70wmonwpwtrltvigmnvi9okwsyu)>
to: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=9kf_0inmefglk-hcg7e6e2jme2et2dh5sbv3idkilkknbb18flrk9gelezd0j8de qkxmrwldojhnigjv8gq)>
sent: friday, february 22, 2002 2:17 pm
subject: [asc2k] questionable stuff in "convergence iii"
> hi all,
>
> i've been mostly lurking on this list, and (slowly)
> reading the materials on the ascension2000 website.
> certainly, i've found all of this new (to me) information
> quite interesting, but this morning i read some
> stuff about gravity that seems rather questionable
> to me (having worked as an astrodynamics engineer
> for the past 17 years). i'll quote some passages
> from convergence iii, chapter 8 "keely and
> the physics of vibration" and then add my 2 cents
> afterwards...
>
> >most people never consider that we see proof of this
> >balanced interplay between gravity and levity every day.
> >think about conventional ideas of gravity for a moment;
> >it is believed to be a force that causes two objects to
> >be attracted to each other. if this is the only force
> >that exists, then we should expect that when two objects
> >get close enough to experience gravitational attraction
> >to each other, they will literally come into contact
> >with each other. however, all you need to do is look
> >up at the moon on any given night, and you can see the
> >proof that this is not what happens! we know that the
> >moon has enough of a gravitational pull that it can
> >cause the oceans to move, forming the tides on the earth,
> >and yet it always maintains a perfect distance from us
> >with an ongoing and even orbital motion. to put it bluntly,
> >if there wasn?t a constant push-pull of gravity and levity
> >moving between the earth and the moon and balancing their
> >positions, they would have crashed into each other long ago!
>
> orbital motion depends on more than just gravitational forces.
> it also depends on velocity and distance. so, the moon,
> satellites, and the space station can all stay in a stable
> orbit with respect to the earth if they are travelling
> at the correct velocity for the distance they are away
> from the earth. so to me, the above paragraph proves
> nothing.
>
> >another piece of evidence that is so often overlooked
> >is with our satellites. there is a spherical band around
> >the earth in which objects can float indefinitely. while
> >they are in this area, they will not drift away from the
> >earth, but they also will not drift any closer to the
> >earth. in this energy belt, all of our satellites are
> >placed, so that many of them do not require any propulsion
> >systems to stay in orbit; once they?ve been put there,
> >they will stay there indefinitely, and any propulsion
> >systems are only needed for slight changes in movement,
> >if at all. this area could not exist if gravity was
> >simply a one-way force.
>
> i don't even know where to start on this paragraph. as
> far as i can tell, everything about it is incorrect.
> firstly, there is no such spherical "energy band" where
> objects can float indefinitely. there are
> isolated points where the earth/moon/sun gravity
> cancel each other out, but these are isolated ("libration")
> points, not spherical bands. the vast majority of the
> satellites launched into space are placed "geosynchronous"
> (geo) orbit, but there is no special energy band here either. this
> is simply a satellite orbit in which the rotational speed
> about the earth is equivalent to the earth's rotational
> speed about the poles, so the satellites "appear"
> stationary from the ground, so you can point your
> antennas (like your directv antennas) at them.
> however, you can put a satellite in any orbit you'd
> like and it will remain just as stable as the satellites
> in geo. for example, the space shuttle remains
> stable at a very low altitude, the space station
> at a slightly higher altitude, the gps satellites
> are at a higher altitude, and the geo satellites
> are at a much higher altitude still. there is
> no special "energy band" keeping them there. just
> the appropriate "circular orbit velocity" for that
> altitude.
>
> >and now we have a problem with ?space junk? that floats
> >around in this energy layer, due to the fact that it
> >never goes away; everything that has ever been released
> >in this area is something that can potentially collide
> >with satellites and other objects. many satellite observatories
> >on earth actively track the larger pieces of space junk to
> >avoid damage to their equipment, and it is becoming more
> >and more publicly known that this is growing into a very
> >real problem that will need to be dealt with in the not-
> >too-distant future.
>
> yes indeed, we've had problems with space junk for
> decades, and it continues to get worse, but again,
> there is no special energy layer at work here...
>
> of course, finding so many inaccuracies in a subject that
> i know something about makes me wonder about the accuracy
> of all these other subjects that i don't know anything about.
> however, i'll continue to keep on reading... just with
> a higher level of skepticism than before... :-)
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
>
> to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=sjlowlgbr_zpkrfofnbx0om7khxb9oi3euvsdr z2adk8ufeoervqd-gvprpomekqohe7cd4gkcdhmf0simgl1hpytkhmnvif)
>
>
>
> your use of yahoo! groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
i'm responding late at night as i've just checked the email. the gravity
information came out of conversations with my friend joseph myers, who is a
licensed physical engineer. he mentioned that this anomaly of gravitational
cancellation is rarely discussed, just accepted, and his take on it was that
it represented a resonance point between the two opposing gravity-levity
forces. until now i had not heard what most thinkers consider this effect to
be caused by. this area is certainly "looser" than many others, probably
written in a flurry of activity as much of that writing from chapter 4
onward was done over three and a half weeks - and as you'll see in divine
cosmos, there are an estimated 500+ internet references and everything i say
in many of the chapters is backed up and footnoted.
thank you for the peer review - you see, in this field we don't have the
structures that the mainstream have in place. i am not embarrassed, because
you're the first person who was refined enough in thinking to see an
inconsistency. this is actually a sign of progress. what i'm attempting to
put together requires a very broad knowledge of a variety of subjects and
the ability to instantly recall them at will. so bear in mind that i have
had to be an expert on each category that you read about, many of which you
say you are not aware of. trust me, once the whole trilogy is complete it
will be quite airtight - and i've had little errors pointed out by many
gifted thinkers in the past. however, the overall model is extremely solid
and it is simply on my shoulders to communicate it well enough that the
reader sees what i see. and interestingly, i often tell people to skip right
from chapter 3 to chapter 9, since the engineering data is already difficult
enough for many readers.
if you have difficulty accepting the idea of a gravity-levity balance then
you should be aware that it is now being acknowledged in the mainstream that
gravity must have an oppositional force. i have a study from some folks in
india that mentions how the sun is 99.86 percent of the mass of the solar
system yet the planets are not attracted into it. you can rebut with "yes,
that's centrifugal force," but once you examine the data from stoneking
resonance and the nineveh constant, you see that the solar system functions
as an oscillating "physical vacuum" system that is far too precise to be
accounted for by any present theories. many of these points were not mature
in convergence iii, as i had not finished the book but rather put out what i
had done up until then since i was about to be on art bell.
the best person to read about "push gravity" theory is walter wright, who is
featured well on the keelynet website. he discusses various observations
from the moons of saturn, et cetera that help to support his theory.
the key point to remember is that we're not going to be satisfied with the
game of discarding anomalies anymore. gravity as an aetheric flow simply
makes more sense once the unified model is seen, and i can't take the time
to re-articulate such an integrated model here. everything in ciii is just a
drum-roll for what you'll see in divine cosmos, which will probably be of
especially strong use to someone of your temperment. so hang in there...
meantime i'm still waiting to hear back on this website thing, hopefully it
will be resolved by monday.
btw: i can't stress enough that richard and i are in complete agreement
about the nibiru 2003 prophecy. those who have read my books should see how
under-developed of a theory it is, to say the least.
it is possible, based on these suggestions and my own musings, that with the
final polish of divine cosmos coming out so amazingly well that i might
truncate convergence iii since there still is about another 60+ pages of
content that i need to insert, and the "bell" for 300 pages has already
rung.
peace be with you -
- david
----- original message -----
from: "marc martin" <marc@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ad1kwb5aiqrzzlrabk5vbwftg3xr4vkwafwxr3 qqwr0tltopyxre70wmonwpwtrltvigmnvi9okwsyu)>
to: <asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=9kf_0inmefglk-hcg7e6e2jme2et2dh5sbv3idkilkknbb18flrk9gelezd0j8de qkxmrwldojhnigjv8gq)>
sent: friday, february 22, 2002 2:17 pm
subject: [asc2k] questionable stuff in "convergence iii"
> hi all,
>
> i've been mostly lurking on this list, and (slowly)
> reading the materials on the ascension2000 website.
> certainly, i've found all of this new (to me) information
> quite interesting, but this morning i read some
> stuff about gravity that seems rather questionable
> to me (having worked as an astrodynamics engineer
> for the past 17 years). i'll quote some passages
> from convergence iii, chapter 8 "keely and
> the physics of vibration" and then add my 2 cents
> afterwards...
>
> >most people never consider that we see proof of this
> >balanced interplay between gravity and levity every day.
> >think about conventional ideas of gravity for a moment;
> >it is believed to be a force that causes two objects to
> >be attracted to each other. if this is the only force
> >that exists, then we should expect that when two objects
> >get close enough to experience gravitational attraction
> >to each other, they will literally come into contact
> >with each other. however, all you need to do is look
> >up at the moon on any given night, and you can see the
> >proof that this is not what happens! we know that the
> >moon has enough of a gravitational pull that it can
> >cause the oceans to move, forming the tides on the earth,
> >and yet it always maintains a perfect distance from us
> >with an ongoing and even orbital motion. to put it bluntly,
> >if there wasn?t a constant push-pull of gravity and levity
> >moving between the earth and the moon and balancing their
> >positions, they would have crashed into each other long ago!
>
> orbital motion depends on more than just gravitational forces.
> it also depends on velocity and distance. so, the moon,
> satellites, and the space station can all stay in a stable
> orbit with respect to the earth if they are travelling
> at the correct velocity for the distance they are away
> from the earth. so to me, the above paragraph proves
> nothing.
>
> >another piece of evidence that is so often overlooked
> >is with our satellites. there is a spherical band around
> >the earth in which objects can float indefinitely. while
> >they are in this area, they will not drift away from the
> >earth, but they also will not drift any closer to the
> >earth. in this energy belt, all of our satellites are
> >placed, so that many of them do not require any propulsion
> >systems to stay in orbit; once they?ve been put there,
> >they will stay there indefinitely, and any propulsion
> >systems are only needed for slight changes in movement,
> >if at all. this area could not exist if gravity was
> >simply a one-way force.
>
> i don't even know where to start on this paragraph. as
> far as i can tell, everything about it is incorrect.
> firstly, there is no such spherical "energy band" where
> objects can float indefinitely. there are
> isolated points where the earth/moon/sun gravity
> cancel each other out, but these are isolated ("libration")
> points, not spherical bands. the vast majority of the
> satellites launched into space are placed "geosynchronous"
> (geo) orbit, but there is no special energy band here either. this
> is simply a satellite orbit in which the rotational speed
> about the earth is equivalent to the earth's rotational
> speed about the poles, so the satellites "appear"
> stationary from the ground, so you can point your
> antennas (like your directv antennas) at them.
> however, you can put a satellite in any orbit you'd
> like and it will remain just as stable as the satellites
> in geo. for example, the space shuttle remains
> stable at a very low altitude, the space station
> at a slightly higher altitude, the gps satellites
> are at a higher altitude, and the geo satellites
> are at a much higher altitude still. there is
> no special "energy band" keeping them there. just
> the appropriate "circular orbit velocity" for that
> altitude.
>
> >and now we have a problem with ?space junk? that floats
> >around in this energy layer, due to the fact that it
> >never goes away; everything that has ever been released
> >in this area is something that can potentially collide
> >with satellites and other objects. many satellite observatories
> >on earth actively track the larger pieces of space junk to
> >avoid damage to their equipment, and it is becoming more
> >and more publicly known that this is growing into a very
> >real problem that will need to be dealt with in the not-
> >too-distant future.
>
> yes indeed, we've had problems with space junk for
> decades, and it continues to get worse, but again,
> there is no special energy layer at work here...
>
> of course, finding so many inaccuracies in a subject that
> i know something about makes me wonder about the accuracy
> of all these other subjects that i don't know anything about.
> however, i'll continue to keep on reading... just with
> a higher level of skepticism than before... :-)
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
>
> to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=sjlowlgbr_zpkrfofnbx0om7khxb9oi3euvsdr z2adk8ufeoervqd-gvprpomekqohe7cd4gkcdhmf0simgl1hpytkhmnvif)
>
>
>
> your use of yahoo! groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>