That's a lot to answer in one post... but I will certainly try to answer most of it for you.
As far as the civilization in Ancient China... there were many civilizations in existence on Earth at that time. Are you reffering to the civilization of around 1500BC? If so, there are several things I can tell you about it..
The orientals first came to Earth from a race that is unkown to even to the aliens. All that they knew about them was that they came from very far away, and were peaceful and kept to themselves mostly. They first settled in Qin Chuan, in central china. They established a society where peace took precedence over everything else. They built many hundreds of pyramids, near the now current city of Xian. The pyramids belonged to an age when the "old emperors" reigned in China, and that the emperors always stressed the fact that they did not originate on Earth. Rather they were the descendants of the "sons of heaven, who roared down to this planet on their fiery metallic dragons".
On mainland China there are remnants of ancient civilizations, and the stories of their past glory seems to exceed the humble peasantry of today. Was there a great civilization that fell? Yes, as on all continents during the pole shifts, the devastation is so great that cities essentially are brought to dust. China of the past was in keeping with the Chinese people, who are intelligent and diligent. But their development was no more impressive than what they have today. Of course, there are places where today there is but a village, the inhabitants of which can scarce do more than tend to their fields for survival. And if there are traces that indicate a great city once stood nearby, one could postulate that mankind fell. However, after the pole shifts the few survivors regularly migrate, constantly, seeking to escape the gloom and constant rainfall which is everywhere. Of course the survivors disappeared. They went elsewhere.
The big bang? What came before it?
Well I am not permitted to tell you *everything* as some things have yet to be discovered. But I will tell you a bit about the process of the big bang.
Neither Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking are correct in their theories on the origin of the Universe, although there are portions of both theories that contain some element of truth. The Universe is not inert, subject to pressures that cause it to explode or compress back into black holes. It is no more inert than your body. It is alive. When I speak of religion, and say we are all parts of the One, that we are within God, and that the Universe is within God, we are referring to this. The natural laws that seem immutable to you are functioning as they are because this is God?s intention at the present time. Much of what you desire to learn will not be available to you until you reach greater spiritual maturity. It is not even on the platter during your next stage of development, 4th Density, the Service-to-Self or Service-to-Other consolidation stage.
Following a Big Bang, particular matter forms along the following lines. First, the explosion of matter from a Black Hole, which has grown monstrously large in the eons leading up to a particular Big Bang, is not even. No explosions are even, and all affect different parts of the matter they are affecting at different rates and times. Thus, particular matter coming out of a Big Bang is not even, all the same composition. Just as our Sun, which seems to be of the same consistency, is not homogeneous, and just as the core or magma of your Earth is not homogeneous, just so the matter coming out of a Big Bang quickly becomes differentiated. There are literally millions of factors affecting what a bit of matter will become, and the sum of these factors affect how that bit of matter will interact for it's existence until the next Big Bang it finds itself entangled in.
Particles that are fluid, on the move, are by their nature loosely coupling with other particles. Humans are familiar with the coupling that occurs in atoms, the nucleus surrounded by whirring electrons, for instance. Other particles couple in predictable ways. What causes attraction and repulsion between particle types? I will use a common example to explain, as the concepts can get complex. Magnetism happens due to the continuous flow of magnetic particles, a type of the particle we call electrons, but this magnetic flow is not consistent everywhere. It is concentrated where a break in the pattern of electronic orbiting a nucleus allows a mass escape. What are they escaping from? An over-concentration of whatever it is they are made of! In the case of magnetism, magnetic particles are escaping from a press of other magnetic particles, since they couple poorly and seldom, they are readily on the move.
All matter seeks a level of homogeneity, and can never achieve it as it is by its nature, coming out of the Big Bang, non-homogeneous with the other particle types. Likewise, attraction is in essence an escape, misinterpreted by the humans who have termed it otherwise. Gravity is nothing more than the effect of returning gravity particles drifting back into a gravitational giant after having been ejected in what we would equate to a laser stream of particles, which burst through rather than push at whatever is in their way to escape. Why do they drift back, and is this not an attraction to return to the gravitational giant they just recently left? As odd as it may sound to those unused to these concepts, these gravity particles are indeed running away from an environment they find clogged with matter composed of element they themselves are heavy in - what humans commonly term the Dark Matter that fills to void of space. They crowd back into what is for them a lesser field, the core of gravitational giants, where they are repeatedly ejected due to this very crowding!
Different sections of the Universe have different compositions. By this I mean the elements are found in different proportions and the resultant chemical reactions that ensue therefore have different characteristics. Some worlds have silicon based life. Some suns emit radiation that is poisonous to us. Those environments contain severe dangers, as silicon based microbes are ones our immune system could not begin to muster a defense against. An analogy we could use is the soil across a terrain. One place is acidic and is covered with moss, another has soil that compacts into rock-like hardness, discouraging probing roots. The variables are many, and any horticulturist will tell you that a wildflower taken from one location could not be expected to grow in another. Just so is the Universe, we have discovered, and the mix of elements that compose the soil in this section of the Universe is our niche. Incarnated, we are not allowed, not able, to explore outside this niche.
>>oh and the relationship between gravity and anti-gravity<<
Gravity differs between objects of different compositions. Like compositions attract each other more, due to the compatibility of their makeup. They have no extraneous dramas to resolve. Metals figure heavily in this, no pun intended, as a magnetic component enters into the equation. Where there is flexibility for the objects to turn, one or both will maneuver such that they are magnetically aligned. This takes time, however slight, and thus an iron ball may appear to fall more slowly in a vacuum than an object of comparable weight that has but a slight magnetic retention. Organic compounds also react to gravity in a different manner than in-organic compounds, and this is due to the complex bonding between the atoms. Bonding involves tying up the electrons, which are used as glue in that they are shared by more than one atom. Thus, organic material in general will not experience the interference that matter with free electrons does during a gravity attraction. Inorganic material in essence takes time out to shed or take on electrons, slowing its movement.
In general, the heavier an object, the greater the gravity force generated within it for another object. The gravity force is more than compounded, equivocally, but this fact is lost by those viewing the drama because most of the drama takes place within the object itself. Why would this not be the case? Why would matter only reach out to matter not contiguous, with its attraction, and not matter near at hand? Some call this internal gravity compression, but this is merely gravity working to pull each atom toward the greater bulk, which in the case of an orb, like a Sun or planet, is generally toward the center. As the force of gravity reaches in all directions, the larger or heavier object is emitting more of a come-on than a smaller or lighter object. When several objects are involved in giving each other the come-on, the contention causes all of the bodies to dither, but an equilibrium is established in accordance with the mass and composition of the objects and their distance from each other. Humans find their understanding of gravity to be incomplete because they are not taking into consideration the repulsion force that large bodies, such as planets, generate toward each other.
To explain anti-gravity will take some reading, if you wish to do so.
Scientists are acutely aware of the attraction force inherent in gravity, as are folks in general. The babe learns about this early, while taking his first few steps. Oops. Ouch! It is assumed that gravity has only an attractive force, and that the planets, in orbit around the Sun, are held in place by their momentum. Does this make sense? What caused the momentum in the first place? Children play with a ball on the end of a string, swinging it around and around their head. As long as the arm is tugging, the ball maintains its orbit, else stops. Why would the planets not drift into the Sun? Are the orbits all that swift so that centrifugal force is extreme?
The reason Mankind is Unaware of a repulsive force, also inherent in gravity, is that for this to become evident there must be a semblance of equality in size and weight, i.e. the mass of the objects, and freedom of movement such as exists in space, and lack of undue influence from other nearby objects. Objects on the surface of the Earth have none of these. They are infinitesimal in proportion to the Earth itself, and thus any repulsion the Earth may have toward a tiny speck on its surface is also infinitesimal. Proportionally, its all gravity, a one way trip. The object on the surface, pushing away, is overwhelmed by the Earth's gravitational pull, the attraction. The repulsion force is generated as a result of two bodies exerting a gravitational force on each other. In the case of a tiny object on the surface of the Earth, its gravitational pull on the Earth is scarcely noticed by the Earth. A gnat or mite. A nothing. Where the repulsion force has not been invoked within the Earth by any objects placed on the surface of the Earth, this is in play between the Earth and her Moon. The repulsion force is invoked between objects on the surface of the Earth, incessantly, but this is masked by the intense force of gravity the Earth presents and other factors such as surface tension or friction or chemical bonding so that the repulsion force cannot be recognized.
The gravitational force exists first. It is the static condition. The repulsion phenomena only manifests when, as we said, the objects are of equal size, are free to move, and dominate the immediate environment. Where the repulsion force comes to equal the force of gravity by the time the objects in play would make contact, it builds at a rate that differs from gravity. Humans have calculated the force of gravity, which at first we assumed was equal for all objects but lately have come to understand is stronger for larger objects. We have formulas for the force of gravity which have proved accurate on the face of our home planet. These formulas are incomplete, and would not work as expected elsewhere, however. The repulsion force is infinitesimally smaller than the force of gravity, but has a sharper curve so that it equals the force of gravity at the point of contact. For experimental purposes, one would have to be almost at the point of contact for it to come into play at all, and this in an environment where other factors are eliminated or negated. To examine the phenomena, Earth scientists would have to set up a lab in space, far enough away from any planetary body so that free movement is possible. Place two balls in a cage. Put one in motion toward another. Microscopically examine the interchange. They do not touch. They do not bounce off one another. They do not touch.
The advent of the space age and the increasing number of UFO sightings have generated intense curiosity about space travel in human scientists. Some cling to the notion that all travel within or against a gravity field must be by propulsion, clinging to known and familiar theories - airplanes lifting off the ground and running parallel as long as the air stream over the wings can be maintained, or rockets sent out and away from the Earth's gravity by propulsion. Space ships, which zip about and hover as though gravity did not exist are clearly not run by propulsion, however, and thus speculation is running rampant. Mankind will not be given the answers he seeks, nor will he be able to arrive at the correct solution based on his own efforts. Human scientists are working and reworking their current concepts, which are fraught with errors, and thus, heading in the wrong directions, they will not succeed.
The silliest theories are that space ships indeed use propulsion, but are subtle about it. These theories have the space ships hovering by the same means that hover craft stay above the ground or water, by blowing air out from the bottom of the craft. All this is accomplished, so the theory goes, without disturbing the air space, though this obvious contradiction is never addressed. Sightings where space ships move silently through forests, with never a branch or leaf moving as they pass, would seem to discredit this theory, but the advocates hold firm. This theory is a favorite of some as it allows mankind to be on a technological par with the visitors.
A partially correct theory is that space ships generate their own gravity field. This is not so much a theory as an observation, since ships not only hover as though treating the gravity pull of the Earth with disdain, but provide the occupants with their own gravity field. Earth scientists in the employ of MJ12 have first hand knowledge of this, having taken short jaunts in observation ships and having noted that the ground can be in view overhead, yet their feet remain stuck firmly to the floor. Creating one's own gravity field is primarily for comfort, not travel, but it is also a component required for travel.
Element 115, a heavy metal Bob Lazar was introduced to, is indeed one of the means to achieve space travel, though not the only means. Element 115 does not in and of itself have magical properties, a fact which should be obvious from the reports leaking out of MJ12 labs. If element 115 had special gravity features, generating its own gravity field without abatement, then all the scientists would find their feet stuck to the container rather than the lab floor. It is not element 115 per se but the structure of its composition that supports other steps in the process, and about this we will say no more.
Short cuts, such as space warps, have been discussed for decades as the easy answer. The Universe is circular, so the theory goes, and all one need do to go elsewhere is step back along the circle rather than go the whole way around. This theory is absurd, and doesn't take much to dispute. How does the Universe manage to project itself to its astronomers and the stargazers among its common folk as linear if its actually up there in curves? Is the Universe conducting a massive conspiracy to delude mankind? Star systems that appear to be far away are in fact at a distance, and there are no short cuts, distance wise.
Negating the Earth's atmosphere is one step in the process, and as I have mentioned is one of the reasons for generating an internal gravity in a space ship during travel. This is done, however, not to lift off the Earth, but to provide the environment for the next step. Space ships hovering above the Earth are still dealing with the Earth's gravity field, in full.
Hovering involves invoking the repulsion force in a controlled manner, and space travel involves turning it off in a controlled manner. Space travel is a irresistible kiss, and a quick kiss, between two gravity attractors. This quick kiss is achieved by turning off the repulsion force between two points, and is a carefully controlled process. As mankind has yet to even accept the existence of a repulsion force, we will hardly arrive at the scheme in the near future. And then, mankind is hampered by all the errors in our existing theories, which are dragged forward as some sort of garbage that can never be discarded, held close to the hearts and minds of their advocates.
And the rainbow serpent? Are you speaking of Kundalini energy passing through the chakras? Please be more specific. I will answer more of your questions later, but at this time my hands and brain need a rest.
Love and Light
|