In the continuing search for answers

;There have been many posts regarding solutions with sustainable transportation. Although the answers and solutions are evident, reception seems illusive.

How important is the social demand for sustainable transportation alternatives? World headlines hammer the public with a constant beleaguering of blame for global warming, climate change, greenhouse gas explosion, oil depletion, rising ocean levels, melting ice caps, and manmade climate disasters to end all life.

The enthusiasm of political interests to pass accommodating legislation should be an opportunity for the development of transportation alternatives. And yet, with all the dramatic political theater; the only actions for transportation are the constant increase of fuel costs and bigger tax burdens wielded onto the public. The public transportation projects implemented; provide a maintaining for status-quo freeway traffic, and cater to political pork by benefiting lobbyist interests with antiquated streetcar or bus “rapid transit” (BRT – which literally increases the bus line average speed two to four mph). Government is embedded in bureaucracy; its only function is to enlarge itself.

Regarding intentional research that provides investing into searching for alternative modes of transportation, publicly invested tax dollars are missing. The government is not a friend to sustainable alternatives in transportation. Politically controlled social programs are active to announce green voices of concern but carry narcissistic animosity with their empty promises.

Where is the transportation industry in research? Cars are still designed by fashion dictate. Cars are a high-ticket item that produce big numbers for the purpose of profit. The point of manufacturing a new automobile design each year is to create annual income. Automobile and related product manufacturing industries have to be leery of products negatively affecting their income.

What does that leave for sustainable transportation solutions? This inaction causes the doors of opportunity to expand.

The fact remains: all chemical explosions are centrifugal force. This opposes nature. As Viktor Schauberger point's out: nature moves with centripetal motion. This is a vital fact and seemingly is completely ignored but, incredibly important to consider. Sustainable transportation has to employ efficient energy.

Here’s a question imperative for space travel. Using the finest components of available rocket technology, how many days would a flight to Mars require? 250 days? Here’s an even better question: why does it take so long? The answer: combustion energy is horrendously inefficient. The massive amount of waste is beyond an embarrassment to the engineering industry. As has been pointed out numerous times on this blogsite: combustion energy is released in 360 degrees: a rocket’s trajectory is only 1 degree.

So, what does rocket science engineering do in their attempt to go faster? Bigger bombs. Nuclear powered explosions for propulsion. Eh, here’s a question. Are reactions to nuclear explosions faster, and travel at faster speeds than the energy release reactions of chemical explosions? How much launch speed gain will nuclear powered explosions provide?

Heat is the opposite of efficient energy use. There are engineers who comprehend this concept. The realization of tremendous heat generated to launch a rocket and efficient energy use is somehow overlooked by the entire realm of rocket science. Propulsion causes heat. Heat is the act of friction of particle collisions. Propulsion is centrifugal force and opposes efficient transportation.

An even better question: would it be advantageous to travel to Mars at one-tenth the speed of light? The trip would take less than ten minutes. A flight to Mars at one percent of the speed of light would take less than two days. Would that provide motivation to investigate a possible methodology for the technology that could allow it?

What does it take to stimulate such conversations

In 2016 a patent was granted for a craft utilizing inertial mass reduction.

Abstract:

A craft using an inertial mass reduction device comprises of an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The electrically charged outer resonant cavity wall and the electrically insulated inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave emitters create high frequency electromagnetic waves throughout the resonant cavity causing the resonant cavity to vibrate in an accelerated mode and create a local polarized vacuum outside the outer resonant cavity wall.

The reason of importance for a conversation relating to this is: inertia. For all ultra-high speed space flight, a craft has to have an independent inertia field for flight maneuverability and occupant safety.

In the patent application, a significant background was laid out in order to justify the legitimacy of granting the patent. The application of this scientific conversation is both stimulating and refreshing. Within the dialog is opportunity for expansive thought, outside the normal boundaries of preconceived limitation. 

Although it isn’t mentioned, the craft utilizes technology similar to the concept of the Biefeld-Brown Effect. Additionally, not mentioned in the background is the ship designed and built by Otis Carr. His spacecraft design postulated the probability for attaining independent inertia. This was proposed by a three-section craft, the outer shell having two opposing rotating fields which encompass a neutral position for the center area (the bridge - control and operational center). 

Employing gravitational independence from Earth’s gravity, enables the removal of necessity for aerodynamic engineering. Earth’s rotational spin is 1,000 mph, its rotation around the sun is 66,060 mph. Both speeds are in a counter-clockwise rotational direction. This means that the design spin of the craft needs to copy this natural counter-clockwise centripetal motion. To be freed from Earth’s gravitational field, the craft’s spin rate has to exceed Earth’s distance traveled at its rotational speed. 

It is the opinion of CATTCC research that the use of rotational spin, as explained in the postulations of Viktor Schauberger, Otis Carr, and John Searl; present flight capability, as well as independent inertia.

The patent application is a fascinating read: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

The first two sentences on the device background explains the foundation for the operational grounds on which the device is based:

There are four known fundamental forces which control matter and, therefore, control energy. The four known forces are strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force.

As is explained in the gravity blogpost, gravity is defined as angular momentum to the path of particle mass at light speed. Using the perspective of Einstein’s theory of relativity that our universe is traveling at light speed; it nullifies academia’s popular theoretical physics theory that matter is static. This presents a disagreement of the four known fundamental forces. It does support T. Townsend Brown’s hypothesis of electrogravitics.

Independent inertia is a valid and brilliant topic for creative conversation. For that conversation, the discussion should consider a new theory for gravity which provides a new perspective.