| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

Faster than the speed of light travel is considered impossible.


Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.


Faster than light speed.
Faster than light speed.

Faster than light speed is possible. To go faster than the speed of light we have to rewrite Einstein's work. Here is how we can move faster than the speed of light. This paper (by PM Crowley) is only theoretical!

Maybe the greatest irony to prohibit belief in ufology, the study of ufos, is that of Einsteinian special relativity and the laws of physics. A problem that has always been neglected in ufological debate, and the discussion of how to move any propellant object across the universe.

It might seen insignificant to the untrained observer, that one remarkable piece of physics can extinguish their belief and make redundant any esoteric debate on such an intriguing, yet ambiguous subject.

Some may even argue the debate not ambiguous, as the proof is overwhelmingly conclusive. But what we have to understand, even admit to, is the proof surrounding this subject is anything but conclusive, regardless of the millions of eyewitness accounts; that governments house downed craft, or even the numerous tales of alien abduction.

These stories would be fine, if we only ever sought to preach to the converted; but in essence, for science they fail abysmally in their construction and will never be taken seriously. Even at the point of abstract debate.

The reason for this is a simple one: Special relativity.

Not many ufologist appreciate, that with special relativity applied to the equation, extraterrestrial craft visiting us is not only unlikely, it's theoretically impossible. Therefore, our challenge here must be unambiguous, and our endeavour credible.

We mustn't just seek to deal in rhetoric, but we must deal in science. Even if only from a philosophical perspective. By that I mean, we shouldn't just claim special relativity wrong, we must show it wrong in a candid expression which allows science the opportunity to measure what we say.

To achieve this phenomenal task, we have to set ourselves some universal criteria, laced with an objectivity, where our science at least matches their's, if not surpasses it. Nothing else will do. And that is no easy job.

When we talk openly of the intricacies in these next pages you are about to read, you must be painfully aware of the criteria we should naturally have to meet. Any scientist will demand an equation. An equation is fundamental to enable the postulate to be incorporated within a mathematical framework, which subsequently allows our theory to be advanced to its next progressive stage: That of a prediction. A prediction is built in to any thesis to extract that ambiguity we spoke of earlier. Also, at that point any ambivalence can be sequestrated. This enables science to go forth and examine the rudiments of this idea with a forensic application, and report back the authenticity as to what we say.

Without an equation and prediction, no theory will be taken seriously and its creator may become no more than another crank purporting the virtues of something that is unsubstantial. And that would serve our belief not one jot.

For these reasons then, a sense of probity needs to be endorsed. We must demonstrate our candour with the most meticulous search ever undertaken in the advancement of ufology.

In other words, we should attempt to make the impossible, possible from an academic perspective never before achieved. What we also have to comprehend is, as we advance our theory into a practical debate, we shall be vilified.

Yet reluctantly, I think this is something we have to accept, as anyone who rewrites Einsteinian physics must.

It's not particularly that science is riddled with acrimony, but more, bigotry inflicts the world of science with as much cancerous application as it does any other part of society. Science, its hallowed halls and academics are usually educated on preconceived notions, and any distinction which may arise is treated with scepticism.

This is not just because some prurient nature envelopes them, but more, they don't like to break ranks with each other. And so we need to elevate ourselves above this practice and be prepared, where necessary to sustain an academic hostility, even before they fully investigate and diagnostically examine the belief put forward in this paper.

Belief in special relativity

einstein and the theory of relativity.
Einstein and the theories of relativity.

There is little we can do to alter this belief. It is a way of life, delivered by the few, over the many. Therefore, we shall reluctantly accept this appalling attitude to what we seek, and push on unperturbed by the wider, intransigent world.

As we progress deeper in this short work, I will try and explain, simply where possible the evident nature of special relativity, its importance and the difficulties many ufologist have in understanding the very delicate detail this most eminent postulate has always entailed.

For many years now the UFO debate has raged, split individuals from their friends and families, and in some circumstances led to open ridicule between academics and those who truly believe in Extraterrestrial life visiting our glorious world in an abundance.

One of the faults with this argument should be placed firmly on the shoulders of academia, for failing, abysmally in my opinion, to explain the intricacies of this very profound war of words.

Ufologist in the past, have been led to believe, the only reason science does not believe their account of ufology, is because no tangible evidence exists. Or at least no tangible evidence in the public domain that could offer closer scrutiny.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

The real reason any scientists, cosomologist, physicist or alike does not believe any ufologist is quite simply, the event under modern physics is not feasibly possible.

And so, we should first delve more candidly into that esoteric little world, and inspect their reasoning, for what they see as a 'non-debate'.

If we imagine we have just witnessed a craft, of the extraterrestrial variety, and have made our report to the relevant authorities. What do we think the reaction would be? Men in black! Members of the DScl (Department of Scientific intelligence) hounding us with some unbelievable dogma to make us retract our story? I think not, although that does always play well for glossy magazines, Hollywood and television shows.

But what we have to remember is, if the event is not possible in the first place, why bother?

Therefore a much more honest expression is delivered, not that many people listen when it is. The amount of ufologists, those who believe in ufos, who have read work of universal theorem, is limited: And it does you credit in reading this. At least this shows you are committed to a plausible argument, advanced by reasoned exchange.

If we took our fictitious sighting, and explained it to a wider audience, what might the outcome be: A lot of sceptic minds? Shoulder shrugs? That derision we spoke of so openly. Probably all of that and a lot more besides.

But let us not forget, anywhere up to 164 million people claimed to have witnessed some extraterrestrial event, of the first, second or third kind. And so it would be disingenuous of us not to at least seek to explore their wonderful accounts of such events.

Yet, if we took science at its word, and there's no reason at this juncture in time why we shouldn't, to a natural conclusion, then we might indeed be forgiven for reaching the same peroration as them, as the scientific evidence currently presented, seems overwhelmingly precise with its advanced, technological backing.

Imagine if you would for a moment, a star. A distant star in the heavens, and all the marvellous fantasies it can create in the human psyche.

If we said the star was our closest neighbour, Proxima centuri, some 4 light years away: The distance light travels in that period, how long would it take for a spaceship to reach us if travelling at the velocity of light? And please keep in mind that light moves at 186,282,397 miles per second in a vacuum.

We might automatically assume, if the craft travels at the velocity of light, it would take the same as light itself, 4 years. But if the said vessel is measured as a body of mass: (An object measured by its resistance to acceleration), then something rather perverse happens: time shrinks!

And this is really where the crux of the problem arises for any would-be proponent of ufological space travel in spaceships. We could conclude from experiments carried out down here on Earth , this postulate accurate, as the results obtained from it, show a strong vindication even when forensically evaluated back in the laboratory. There would appear to be no anomaly in the theory, as both equation and prediction have been met. Yet an anomaly does still arise from the sheer volume of sighting's which seem ever surmountable.

Is curved space really curved?

curved space.
Curved space showing how light bends due to the gravity of the star.

It appears to be what any sane individual might term, a contradiction. Either science is right, or ufologist's are! Indeed a quandary.

But before we continue further, let's do as promised and peek inside the world of science, and see how they reached their conclusion of a ufological aberration.

To a scientist, cosmologist or physicist, any craft making its journey across the inhospitable wastes of space would incur that indignant problem we spoke about previously: Special relativity. light would be a constant in a vacuum, measured simply as a mathematical (c). There would be no variation in this velocity, and so, although we might believe a vessel in transit may travel at that astronomical speed, in fact, time for any would-be traveller will quickly diminish. One month in space at the velocity of light would almost certainly measure fifty years here on planet Earth .

If we then reverse the analogy somewhat, to give us a greater insight into this delicate topic, we should assume, rather than an alien making some long journey to see us, we could visit them at their illustrious home.

If they inhabited a small planet, similar to ours, around Proxima centuri, we might argue a round trip to see them should take 8 years if we travelled there and back at the determinable speed of light.

But if time shrinks due to a body of mass being measured by its resistance to acceleration, then our space voyage wouldn't take 8 years, but might take somewhere in the region of 4,000 years! And that should theoretically mean, if we were arriving home from our journey today, after visiting our closest neighbour, and on universal terms they are no more than a stone's throwaway, then we might have began our voyage around the time Stonehenge was under construction. A pretty awesome thought.

And naturally we should assume, any Extraterrestrial life out there will also sustain the very same problematic journey as ourselves.

But some might argue at that point, their technology is far superior to ours; and well it might be. But before they do, they should have their veils of ignorance lifted, and understand, here we deal with physics, not technology.

It makes not one iota of a difference whether your craft is the most advanced piece of kit in the universe, or a clapped out old banger from Arthur Daley: The laws of physics are equal to all and a divisibility cannot be struck. Therefore, we must instantly assume, that any adventurer destined for planet Earth could only ever make his journey if the laws of physics were rewritten.

But to countenance this argument, and place it in context, we have to first ascertain what we actually deal with when we delve lucidly inside the mechanics of light itself, for if science is to be believed, and many do not believe them, an appraisal of light needs to be understood. So what is light?

Well, from a dictionary definition, we might interpret it as: "The energy that stimulates the sense of sight and makes things visible". But from a more esoteric understanding, to place a stronger definition, we might describe it as, an indivisible unit of electromagnetic energy that oscillates within the natural waves that permeate any region where light is visible to an observer.

And we should also conclude, that the photon, which makes up light, itself is a massless particle, and therefore determine light cannot feasibly move anywhere, for if it did, its body would contain mass. In other words, it would be measured by its resistance to acceleration. We might like to say, although the photon is oscillating, a vibrating particle might be a more appropriate term.

And if this is the case, and light by us is now re-evaluated as a particle that travels nowhere, then to give it a determinable velocity, even if a constant (c) is no more than a perverse analogy. This should theoretically mean, we have created an ambit to move light at any velocity we choose, and thus provide a route to rewrite Einsteinian physics, and make it possible for the ships to arrive.

The whole crux of the argument is based around that constant, the (c). For as we have already said, if light is a constant then no Extraterrestrial life can arrive at planet Earth , regardless of how far advanced their vessel might be.

But by re-equating the value of light, we make the impossible, possible. Inevitably what we achieve is light becomes determinable not by light waves, but by gravity waves.

To further your comprehension of this, it's important to understand a (conservation of momentum). You might like to think of it like dropping a tennis ball on the floor, and with each bounce it loses a slight amount of energy. If you now imagine this not as a tennis ball but as waves, bouncing back and forth between two stars, you can assume the peaks-and-valleys within these waves gradually distance themselves.

This may show us, that all elementary waves are only ever a contributory factor within a strong wave, fluctuating between both bodies of mass (stars) in tandem.

By doing this, what we achieve, is an ability to allow all universal wave mechanics to distribute a denomination between themselves, and another point, equal in parity to its reciprocal body. And therefore, this endeavour permits us - as strong believers in extraterrestrial life, to postulate theory at this juncture, that time, on any universal dimension is no more than a concept on men's imaginations. And that belief can be vindicated later with measurable prediction.

But we must also demonstrate at this point, the difference between time of a universal dimension, and that of our own individual existence. In other words, we now seek to run two portions of time parallel to each other.

We might like to emphasise that phrase and call it: a time non-time parallel.

The fundamental reason for this, is to exhibit a distinction between Einsteinian special relativity, that concludes the velocity of light (c) to be a constant in a vacuum, and our own, alternative postulate which challenges Einstein's long held belief. And we don't stipulate this easily. In fact, it's very frightening to venture near such a postulate without feeling an enormous uneasiness inhabit my mind. But it has to be undertaken nonetheless if we are to offer credence to another explanation.

When we argue the velocity of light to be a constant, we can automatically attach time-frames to any dimension. This allows us to believe a clock may start ticking, and we can use the said clock as a unit of measurement. Yet in doing so, we have somewhat neglected Newtonian mechanics in the wider ambit of our initial discussion: And maybe to do so is meretricious by its nature.

For although there may be a demonstrative, very showy example on top, what lurks treacherously beneath the surface might be the prohibition of mankind's greatest ambition; passage into the great wide yonder to explore the most distant recesses of space.

In essence we could preclude man's adventures by limiting man's thinking.

If we are right here, and I do stress the importance of the word "If", then one of the most damaging examples of Einsteinian physics is, it only ever holds court with half the numbers it needs to fully show the way our universe interprets a concept slightly different from our own.

What we say, is our universe never discriminates against any other part of the universe, and all observers are literally treated as equal in the matrix's of things, unlike us, as individuals, that may naturally seek exemption from the proliferation of universal edict, we might even assume, from a more Christian, christ son of god, perspective that this denomination of time, based entirely on a universal evaluation is what they termed in medieval times as: "God's time." (That for God to govern the universe, time must cease to exist, as God must be able to look equally forward - as he can backward, whilst governing the present!)

Therefore the theroy unfurling here will most certainly allow any would-be philosopher or cleric an opportunity to discover the fuller implications of Christian belief within the mentality of pantheism, and promote Christianity with some indecent haste.

But as we are concentrating this work for ufologists, that's another paper for another time.

And we must reluctantly concentrate our beliefs on that of ufology as promised under the principle of this doctrine.

We said, with special relativity, we could allow a clock to instantly start ticking. And this we hold too.

When this analogy is applied, we don't particularly challenge any of Einstein's belief, as it would be nonsense to do so. The evaluated criteria has been laid out before us, inspected and vindicated to the best of my knowledge.

However, from the ufologist's perspective, these universal set of physics fail to meet specific alternative criteria and allow the passage of any extraterrestrial craft over any sustained journey at the accelerated velocities it would need to journey from one star system to another.

Therefore, we now raise a very obvious question; one that has never been broached before under the laws of physics, and try to introduce some semblance of reality into a very contrived debate: Could there be two sets of physics which actually contradict one another, just as special relativity and ufology do?It's probably one of the most interesting questions ever posed to both science, philosophy, religion and ufology. For although these specific groups have been sniping at each other, the laws of physics themselves may hold the key to all their arguments; and only our intelligence might have missed some obvious clues. Could our universe really be all things to all people? The hypothesis is intriguing to say the least. And when I originally started my quest, I found the idea laughable. But then, when the evidence slowly emerged, that initial laughter turned to a sober realism.

There was almost a still, temperate sobriety that crossed my body as the thought fermented wildly in my mind. Initially, like many philosophers I found the subject matter of UFO activity somewhat strange to say the least.

I have even believed in the past, that perhaps they are no more than the workings of over active imaginations, with some innocent childlike qualities attached.

But as time lapsed, I too would become a convert.

Yet, the way I watched scientists treat ufologists stirred some sleeping beast inside me. To be perfectly honest, I found the esoteric attitude to the whole problem puerile at best.

Although I had a strong insight into special relativity at that juncture in time, I still couldn't help but see the demonisation of ufologists as anything other than an arrogant attempt of educated bullying. And I knew then that if we were to re-evaluate special relativity we would most certainly need some profound piece of thinking: Something only universal evaluation itself could contest. I was on my way to a universal court, higher than any of man's courts, and conclusive in its verdict. No room for appeal, and no ambit for mitigation. The questions I began asking were profound in their simplicity:

Many unanswered questions...

  • (i) How could any possible UFO circumvent the velocity of light?.
  • (ii) Even if it could, how could the occupants aliens on board be protected on such long, hazardous voyages from the force of gravity?.
  • (iii) Where did these Aliens originate? Ad are they like in the movie, Alien, Aliens 1, Aliens 2, Aliens 3? I doubt it!.
  • (iv) Why can't we detect their home Planets by means of a Doppler? (The change in pitch of frequency from a source to an observer).

What I planned was a piece of theoretical physics that would be so outstandingly obvious, yet unique in its construction.

I wanted the basic mechanics to drive all of these unanswered questions, and simultaneously throw the proverbial grenade amongst the academic community. And I truly believed as I embarked on this difficult passage, the only moral authority open to me was the universe itself.

We could literally argue among ourselves an eternity the belief of ufology, but only one factor could conclusively allow the event: The gracious majesty of the most supreme court in existence, that pantheon of natural, universal physics.

I had deduced, by this time, if one belief could change our perception of ufology, then one theory could explain them all. And so I sought help from existing science, Newtonian mechanics in particular, and analysed Newton's third law: (For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). And suddenly it struck me. There was an elementary flaw in Einsteinian thinking.

We already mentioned, in previous pages, a time non-time parallel, and it was this thought that commenced my journey. Rather than imagine light emitting from a star, I would choose a point of force, equal to any two stars.

It seemed heresy to even tamper with the thought, but some overwhelming desire drove me ever onwards in my defence of the ufological community.

What I did, was change the emmission and transmission points of light, and assume, if light moved one direction from an imaginary point, then it might move two together: Newton's equal and opposite motion.

At this point the reader should keep in mind, gravity always attracts, it never repels. Therefore I decided to explore the theory more fully.

What evidence was there to suggest it accurate?

The first piece of evidence came about from imagery transmitted by media sources. If ever you see film footage of space, you'll notice no stars appear apparent in the background. In fact all we ever see is a sombre black canvas, reflective of a domain that refuses to surrender its secrets lightly. And if no stars are present to witness, we must ask why this is?

Science promotes a theory, based on a belief that our Earth 's gravity prohibits the event. It's too strong. It becomes akin to standing down a mine shaft, and the narrowing of light bans any observation. However, when we see astronauts bouncing over the Moon surface like kangaroos, we must conclude the opposite analogy applies. Not more gravity for any observer, but less! We might even call this an Achilles heel.

And I began to understand that if gravity produced emission and transmission points of light, we could determine its productive power over our perception of time.

By placing light central to any two bodies of mass (stars) and allowing it to move alternatively, two directions simultaneous.

Did Einstein miss the point?

Albert Einstein, I realised missed a valuable opportunity to expand and hone his theory to a wider, more prosperous conclusion. However, it should be remembered by the reader, that although I may criticise Einsteinian physics, I do so with the luxury of certain events Einstein himself would have had no insight too.

Obviously Einstein could not have foreseen the vision Astronauts have today, (no stars obvious by the observer in space) , and the more contentious issue of ufology was not an issue when special relativity was developed in 1905.

One might even argue, for Einstein, the debate was irrelevant for the period he inhabited. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy the conjecture surrounding this subject matter now.

ufology is a very relevant issue to a great amount of people. And in a recent Teletext survey, some 72% of the British public believe in some form of visitation to planet Earth by extraterrestrial life, while in America and Europe, the percentage factor is higher still.

For these reasons then, I tru;y believe we have a moral duty to investigate a contention which science may well advise others to leave alone.

With the brokerage of light in this new postulate, from a point central to any two stars, came not just a sobering realism, but also a sense of excitement.

When I witnessed imagery from space, via my TV, and noticed no stars, I assumed a lack of gravity may cause the event. But I also realised, if this was the case, other events might be able to be included within the remit of this theory itself: Why we see no other planets! How we could build a Spacecraft to cross the inhospitable waste of space; and perhaps more importantly, protect those adventurers which visit our world from the hostile forces of gravity on their long, arduous mission. Excitement soon turned to fear, for if this theory is accurate, it could literally mean indigenous life around every other star in the universe; or at least those stars of a relative parity with our own.

And that could show a universe teaming with life. No doubt some would be less advanced than ourselves, others on a relative par, and some so much more advanced, it could transmit a cold chill through even the most ardent sceptic's mind.

But how serious will this thesis be taken, I ask, even as I sit here pounding the keys? Will I face the same derision as those whom have claimed extraterrestrial encounters? I would imagine so, and this I unduly have to accept. I would be a fool to believe otherwise.

But even then, most critics will have either none, or very little insight of such profound mechanics and the intricacies of their internal matrix's.

What alluded me at the time, was how could I prove what I say? It might seem like a small issue to any ufologist who simply wishes to continue with their belief: That of other life. But for any credible philosopher or theoretical physicist, a postulate is useless without that equation and prediction we spoke about. And I wanted this thing as finely tuned as I could possibly make it.

It would be easy for me to deal in ambiguity, as authors so often do: another work of someone's experience with intergalactic craft, messages from a distant world foretelling our perilous passage towards the future. But in essence they are not worth the paper they are written on. And while I might agree they are an enjoyable read, one thinks they shouldn't be taken too seriously. Any theory is only as good as the evidence you can build from it.

That means a forensic, diagnostic evaluation conducted under the most rigorous circumstances.

Whether we, as ufologists like this analysis or not, it happens to be a fact of life. If we wish to push our beliefs further into the public domain, a sense of courtesy needs to be endorsed, and that means we must provide science with an ambit to vindicate, or dismiss what we say.

Sometimes it can be the most lonely, laborious work imaginable, but we must endure nonetheless.

It will only ever be in our relentless pursuit of the final truth that makes others affiliate to what we say. And no amount of subjective debate will ever achieve that. We truly have to be the truth-seekers of ufology, the ones who accept nothing less than proven evidence.

It was as I stood one morning making a cup of tea, staring aimlessly from the window, that I realised the code to show the velocity of light can be breached, could be broken.

lunar eclipse.
A lunar eclipse transipres

In a startling flash of inspiration I knew I could use Newton's second law to crack the enigma, and I could vindicate the postulate with an appropriation of gravitational influence. One prediction, and I could not only show the velocity of light not to be a constant in a vacuum, but I could equally show that other Planets in distant solar systems caused this event by means of a solar eclipse. What I attempted, was to construct a prediction by increasing the level of gravity in another, distant part of our universe. I understood that as a Moon crossed between the Sun and planet, the star itself must condense slightly. This would cause the breakage of light, if central to both stars to lift as we observe it. Yet once the eclipse had passed, the pin-prick of light (a star) would naturally return to its former position.

see how light lifts through 3 separate stages.
See how the observer on Earth watches light lift through three separate stages before falling back.

I termed this possible event: The rise and fall of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler. See diagram left. Look at how light moves through position A - B and C. It will then fall back through C - B and A.

It might sound somewhat complex, but in reality it's not. It just basically means, a point of light in the night sky, (a star) will momentarily lift up, and then fall back to its original position as the predicted eclipse takes place. Nothing could be more simple to understand.

However, on a Doppler registration, (the change in frequency of pitch from a source to an observer), nothing would be more profound, especially for any ufologist hoping to vindicate ufological belief. At that precise moment, any vehicle could literally cross the universe in the blink of an eye, as gravity rather than light becomes its determinable velocity. It basically means, you may have any speed you wish!

Yet, if we showed this event plausible by predicting an eclipse, then not only could we assume space travel is possible in its ability to meet any velocity, but we will also show the world they may originate from.

The reason this happens is all to do with a Doppler registration.

To fully comprehend what we speak so frankly of, first you have to understand the belief science sponsors. Science sees a star as a body of mass. But when we speak of a breakage of light, central to any two bodies of mass, we create a mere holographic image that is massless. Therefore this point cannot be accurately measured as its calculation is already complete.

You might like to imagine this, for a simplification, as viewing yourself in the mirror, and assuming there's two of you. The analogy under this theorem is strikingly similar, yet subtly different. And it was this, that allowed me to appreciate the fact, that not only could we remove the velocity of light, but we could also cancel universal time, space time, spacetime curvature, fourth dimensional space time, and the Hubble constant: (That which shows the distancing of Galaxies with a steady progession).

no stars visible in space.
no stars are visible to the observer in a weightless environment.

Or what we might term for simplicity sake, matter slowly expanding within our universe.

And the reason this belief arises is perfectly obvious if we assume stars not to be stars, but points of force between two stars, as their wave mechanics become appropriate at the right juncture.

What would happen is, as our planet loses its gravity, all points of force (starlight) distance themselves equidistantly. We might even argue, that if our planet was increasing its level of gravity, we would not see an expanding universe, but a collapsing universe.

This single postulate would literally throw the entire academic world into turmoil if proven correct. One simple reason for saying this is, if light is determined as a point of force, moving two directions simultaneous, then all observers, regardless of their position in the universe would witness all events equally, thus none may calculate a time any different from any other. What we might call a universal equality.

Basically it would show everywhere in our universe today, and therefore, you could never look down that proverbial tunnel of time.

To appreciate this analogy, we must assume two time frames enter the equation, or that time non-time parallel we spoke about previously. We have struck the promised divisibility between the two.

What we have done here by changing the point where light first emits, is show for us, and any other body of matter (mass) measured by its resistance to acceleration, time would apply under the laws of Einsteinian special relativity. A rocket might be inflicted by this principle, as no division is made between the rocket, and that space it travels amongst.

Yet if the universe itself offers a possibility of divisibility, and moves light from a point central to both bodies of mass (stars), then two observers would witness the said event together, thus our universe would have cancelled, or sequestrated time for them both.

To simplify this argument still further, so the reader might understand its clarity, we should use an Einsteinian thought experiment.

clocks racing through space.
An image of how clocks might appear racing through space.

Einstein proposed a theory, which suggested, that if a clock raced towards an observer, through space at the speed of light, the observer would literally see time shrink. Independent observations here on Earth have indeed proved this particular theory accurate.

But that was before I chose to introduce Newtonian equal opposites. If we now include this belief, that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, we might change that Einsteinian thought experiment to one of my own; and say: If a clock raced through space at the velocity of light, towards an observer, but the hands of the clock turned equally and proportionately backwards, time would always stand still.

Therefore, if our clock commenced its journey at 0, the clock, regardless of its velocity would always read 0. We might term this then: The sum total of all equations equals nothing. Or that non-time we enjoyed speaking about.

We could, if we so choose, redefine that as, weightlessness: Or what we would say: A principle of equivalence: (All objects in a vacuum fall with an equal ratio). This allows us some fun with ufology, for although we could apply this theoretical physics to a universe, there is no logical reason why we shouldn't also apply it to a spacecraft. But that we'll come to later.

For now, I wish to continue with the universes interpretation of our postulate and discuss the reason why this might happen. One problem has always been the proliferation of stars, and what makes them burn to produce homogeneous life around them.

If we choose to make our breakage point of light central to any two bodies of mass (stars), then we could assume they automatically have an effect on each other. Yet to produce such an effect, they would also need to apply, an equal opposite force to one another. This would be termed simply: A principle of mirrored ellipses.

Its this reaction to each other that would cause Hydrogen fission, or the burning of a star. And this might provide a stronger ambit for accretion: (A growth or increase by means of addition).

We could call it, euphemistically, clumping. Basically it means to bring individual pieces of matter together, and form a larger structure: In this case, planets.

But this might only ever happen if we quickly rework the emission and transmission velocity of light. For as stars tug against one another, like some universal tug of war, the volume of mass could fluctuate at given times in their very own individual histories.

This might also gestate periods of ice age phenomenon as stars literally lose and gain power throughout their turbulent life cycle. However, it could most certainly produce a high density on the production of Planets and bring them forwards to a possible fruition that is anything other than by accident.

So once again, we witness an event vastly capable of producing life around not just our own beautiful sun, but every other star in the heavens, and that could conjure all kinds of nightmares. For if this process happens, the velocity of light is redefined, every star contains intelligent life and we assume we can construct craft to transport their occupants here, it might be valid to pose some very soul-searching questions: Are they observers? Are they friendly? Or might our immediate future hang precariously in the balance?

We should assume, as we haven't so far been attacked, that these entities, wherever they originate from do not have hostile intent. Or at least they don't currently endorse a hostile policy. Although that most certainly does not mean they will not in the future.

As they haven't made contact with the wider Earth population, one can assume they are not exactly forthcoming either. But again, that does not mean they won't extend a welcoming and friendly hand later on.

But with at least 164,000,000 sighting's, one may assume them to be observers! With the sheer volume of eye witness accounts, statements and reports it might be nonsense to consider any other explanation.

So why observe us?

Are we really so special in a universe teaming with Extraterrestrial life that so many trips would be authorised to study us? I doubt it, unless of course we are visited by a multitude of different species. And that in itself is alarming.

For although we assume a non-aggressive policy has taken precedence until now, no one can satisfactorily guarantee a non-eventful future.

We have to get our beliefs into perspective, and understand the laws of probability. On planet Earth we see different nations made-up of different peoples.

This Time, the one thing we could conclude about this pluralistic melting pot, is they have a large array of different ambitions and aspirations.

Some are driven by money, others by power, and some by conquest. And I see no reason not to apply this logical analogy to the wider domain of space.

If we assume planet Earth contains a hotchpotch of alternative desires, then naturally, under the realms of probability, space would be similar. I would imagine there are indeed friendly alien species prepared to facilitate our passage towards a greater understanding of that which surrounds us. And equally, we should assume a certain amount will harbour more grandiose ambitions of conquest and supremacy. This I'm afraid is all part of that colourful tapestry that makes every living, breathing creature what it is. It all becomes dependant of their own continuous movement towards universal adulthood.

If a species honed and adapted itself through military endeavours, their assumption would be employed through a militaristic genre which might unfold in waves of fighters descending on us from above, high resolution energy weapons, and no mercy for the suppressed.

However, if any alien species managed to move forwards to fruition in a conciliatory fashion endorsing policies of compromise, trading and mutual understanding, then naturally we should assume their policy towards us will be conducted in the very same vein. If however, a path towards where they are now, was engraved with cautious appraisal, then we might expect their approach to be carried out in the same logical manner.

And it is important I briefly broach this subject, for if my methodology is correct, we face all of these questions in our not too distant future. We need to comprehend the severity of what we discuss by rewriting Einsteinian physics, special relativity in particular. For although science has dismissed ufology under the belief a UFO could never make the journey, I, with this theory have become the architect of time. Or non time.

What we have done with our theory is literally remove time from a universal dimension, and made it possible to pursue interstellar transport. That means all of the aforementioned are not only now possible, but are more likely than not, probable.

It's not really a question of if any more, but more a policy of when. What do we do when this eventful day arrives? Surrender! Fight! Sane minds could be driven to the point of insanity thinking of such things. But we must appreciate what we've achieved so far in this short doctrine.

We took an event and changed its very fabric. We managed to cancel time by making light move two directions rather than one; and regardless of any scientific denial, under that belief, our universal cousins are no more than a bus ride away.

Yet it could be that simple word, 'denial,' that heralds the death of our own species.

I have never said I am conclusively right here, merely I offer a very credible route to achieve what we set out to achieve: The possibility to allow Spacecraft to cross the distant wastes of space. Before I undertook this challenge, and it was a challenge laid down on television many years ago by a reputable scientist, the event was not possible.

But by making it possible we have to accept, a denial principle might be endorsed.

Science hates ufologists to their very bones. They treat ufologists and ufology with absolute derision, and perceive any attempt at understanding a greater belief as no more than amateurish.

But now we possess in our armoury something no scientist does, a deeper insight to universal theorem. Not a theory of ambiguities or ambivalence, but one of sound reasoning and scientific prediction. And this has never been achieved before in the UFO debate.

But with it comes fear; for myself included.

It's not very appealing to consider ourselves as one very insignificant little rock drifting aimlessly around a small, insignificant little star, whilst the rest of our mighty universe teams with more advanced life. The mere fact we might have missed a very fundamental piece of physics suggests us not as clever as we might like to think we are. But there we have it nonetheless. Yet with fear comes denial.

I cannot speak for science, but from past performances we may construct a paradigm and gain insight to their probable retort. It will not be generous. Even before our prediction, the rise and fall of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler is even measured, nasty name calling will become apparent, I will be accused of madness, and every ufologist in the land, and wider world will be openly attacked. The nature of the beast it's called. But why?

We talked candidly of both fear and denial. Fear of the unknown by many scientists is a commodity that really isn't worthy of them, for as academics they should explore any possible potential to advance our thinking and understanding of that we have no knowledge of presently.

However, I think that might be asking too much of them. They have entrenched themselves in staid, tired old arguments and not once ventured from their bunkers to discuss the chance of other ideas. It's a shame, and for intelligent minds, a pretty unintelligent policy.

But fear does that to people regardless of intellect. Yet their denial might be more understandable. To have everything you've ever believed in, suddenly turned upside down, then to have to re-evaluate it can leave one defeated.

Also, we mustn't forget our political masters in the matrix's of this. Would they really relish humanity gaining insight to the greatest secret? I doubt it. I have never really been one for cover-ups or conspiracy theories. I, like most ordinary people believed what my government told me. But I now feel I have lost that trust, as daily we see surmountable evidence these conspiracies do exist: BSE, GM foods, and hospitals which allow babies to die, and then gloss over the reasons why.

And if this is the case with standard, everyday problems, then what of those of a universal belief? Maybe I'm just being paranoid. But one would assume none of us are born paranoid. If there is an element of paranoia, then it's because someone, or some institution made me that way; and a lot of other people besides.

Therefore, denial cannot be ruled out.

What might happen if our prediction is accurate, if a scientist does find that rise and fall of starlight? We can only speculate on the outcome. But I would imagine government will be informed long before either you or I, even though I am the one proposing theory on a very strong belief that allows special relativity to be expanded to a natural conclusion. But that I reluctantly accept.

However, what I could never accept is reticence from those institutions. That is why I initially place this thesis doctrine in the ufological domain, via the www, before going public. Because I have an instinctive fear, a spoiler will be attempted, and the theory conveniently buried before the wider community has an opportunity to debate its contents.

We know most government departments are so riddled with lies and secrets, our proposals are treated as no more than an inconvenience. And so, perhaps we should expand our new theory and make it a touch more perfect.

By that, I mean, not only should we allow science an ambit to measure the rise and fall of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler, created by a solar-eclipse in a distant solar system, but we should also show another possible fluctuation in the star's behaviour.

We could also argue, that if a solar-eclipse causes the rise and fall of starlight due to increased volumes of mass, a lunar-eclipse might cause the opposite reaction: The fall and rise of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler.

This basically means, during any lunar-eclipse, starlight will fall to a lower position in the night sky, then reposition itself once the eclipse has transpired. Two predictions then based on the one analogy: The increased or decreased levels of mass at definitive periods during the star's history. But with either of these two predictions, it would demonstrate conclusively, there is no possibility of light remaining a constant under Einsteinian deduction.

I promised earlier on to show why this is so fundamental in the construction, production and transportation of spacecraft, and this I shall now do.

What we have to understand is, even if a vessel could accelerate itself to that phenomenal speed of light, as currently measured, the conditions on board any craft would be horrendous to say the least. Imagine a fighter pilot in an aeroplane reaching two or three times the speed of sound...!

Instantly the G-force becomes unacceptable; the brain is starved of oxygen and he quickly lose consciousness if the velocity is increased.

And at twice the speed of sound he may not travel much more than 1400mph. But at the speed of light, he may move at over 186,000mps. And please note the principle of miles per hour, in comparison with those of light, measured in miles per second!

You may even assume, with such a hostile gravitational force, he could find himself reduced to spaghetti, although that might contain a touch of theatre. What would actually happen is, as any would-be space traveller pressed the accelerator, his craft would move forwards at such alarming speeds, the volume of mass will increase with an ubiquity. The pressure would soon be intolerable, and the vessel quickly condense. At a certain point his craft would go mass-critical and the whole thing fuse like a nuclear weapon. Or a convergence from mass to energy: Einstein's most famous equation: e=mc. (Mass converting to energy at the velocity of light). Not a pleasant thought for any budding young adventurers who might have ambitions to explore the universe; but true nonetheless.

Therefore, if Spacecraft are visiting our world, we should assume that they would have all exploded long before alien spaceships journey was even attempted. That is, of course, if you apply modern scientific criteria to the time equation. However, we chose to circumvent those standard beliefs and formulated our own set of physics to allow us or any aliens an ability to move from point A to point B at any velocity we so desire: Whether that is at the velocity of light, light+1, light+2, or any other accelerated speed that might facilitate our journey, yet still protect any occupant on board the craft.

To achieve this delicate task we spoke explicitly about time. We considered a time non-time parallel in conjunction with ordinary time frames more appropriate to meet the necessary criteria desired by any galactic traveller.

Basically we set out, initially to remove time, or sequestrate it, as we said, from the original concept. We intended to create weightlessness inside the vessel.

To do this we employed, as part of our strategy, Newtonian equal opposites: (For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). And for spaceships Spacecraft and UFOs this methodology might unfurl like thus:

As an outer shell rotates in a clockwise direction, an inner shell would rotate equally, and proportionately in the alternative direction. One motion offsets the other perfectly. It's the same principle as Einstein's clock racing through space, only here we allow the clock hands to spin backwards equally and proportionately to the forwards motion, as we previously mentioned.

So what we would now expect is, as our craft, with a dual application commences its journey, an outer shell might turn clockwise, while a second chamber moves alternatively in the other direction. If we now introduce a third chamber, what we would call a capsule, where any traveller might occupy, then we should naturally assume this extra, third chamber may move as a free moving object: That principle of equivalence which stipulates, (all objects in a vacuum fall equally): Or weightlessness!

At that juncture, we may insist conditions for our Astronaut could be just as hazardous, because although we have stripped away gravity, with its hostile G-force from the equation, to leave our traveller in a weightless environment, regardless of velocity, he may still experience other detrimental problems: Bone erosion, cardiovascular trouble and general sickness.

And so we have to perfect a system to overcome these nightmares, and ensure our traveller has an adequate amount of gravity on board his craft, equal to that of his home planet.

To simplify matters, we now say, if a level of gravity is reintroduced under Einsteinian special relativity, then a clock on board his Spacecraft will reflect a clock on his home world.

But to achieve this, electromagnetic forces would need to be introduced, so that third chamber recognises a restriction. You might like to think of it like driving your car with the handbrake on. The principle would be strikingly similar. We should introduce an equation for that, and determine, as we removed the velocity of light, that constant measured as a mathematical (c), all standard time may measure: (m=e): Or mass equals energy squared. Or what we term simply, the convergence of energy to mass, proportionate to its duration, or life cycle while in transit. The velocity of light no longer plays a role for us as we sequestrated its transmission speed by placing light central to any two bodies of mass (stars) and moving it towards two observers, two directions simultaneous.

And although we haven't shown an equation for this yet, we will now do so, just to prove an immediate accuracy to what we discuss.

If we said X is placed central to any two bodies of mass (stars), as this point, theoretically, could never be accurately predicted, then we might still use the (c), that constant as a measurement. To change its content may prove difficult for the reader, so we'll stick with it.

When light moves towards two observers, around both stars, we must assume the volume of mass to those two stars is equally proportionate to that central point of force: (X). This therefore means, X, the strongest exertion of force between any two bodies of mass, equals (c) the constant cubed: X=c.

An explanation of the new theory.

light moves from point x.
See how we manage to make light move in two directions simultaneous to cancel time.

To facilitate how this works, place your hands together as though in prayer, and then open your arms to their greatest extent.

Imagine that is light rather than your hands moving. Then imagine at their furthest reach, two stars come in to being.

This is the beauty and simplistic nature of this theory. And so, now we have shown, not only a theory, explained simply in words, but one that also contains both its mathematics, equations and answers, although it might be cheating.

I said there would be a time non-time parallel where our time, and universal time run side-by-side in unison. We placed that quickly in two equations: Time: m=e and Non-time: X=c.

The first of these two big equations protects any Astronaut on his journey in the said vehicle, while the second, and perhaps more profound one cancels time on a universal basis. And it's crucial we adapted this belief and showed its importance, for no doubt as a ufologist, one day you will be confronted with science.

And although it's easy just to reiterate your belief, it is also important to meet science on their own ground if you wish your comment to be taken seriously.

Yet, if an event is not possible, you'll be laughed out of town. With this rewrite, you'll at least hold your own against an academic world. You can at least inform them we did what was asked, we accepted their challenge and made the impossible, possible. Perhaps we might even state, that we took the largest step forwards in a ufological debate, and treated our beliefs, not with conjecture, or speculation, but with candour.

Some may suggest at this point, although we have provoked science in its mighty arena, we still haven't shown how to move a vessel across them vast and distant wastes of space. And that is a fair question, for although some might argue we have no insight into such advanced, technological superiority, one might also argue, equally as passionately, that we should really be mature enough to place a plausible prediction forwards to demonstrate a law of physics capable of producing not just highly accelerated speeds able to reach us from distant stars, but also a mode of transport with adequate fuel on board for their journey here, and back whence they came.

To understand the delicacy of our next operation, it is essential the reader comprehends a 'conservation of energy.' That basically means: (Neither energy or its equivalent in mass can either be created or destroyed). For a spaceship this could translate into an inexhaustible fuel supply, because, by its nature it cannot be extinguished. We might term this simply, for easy recognition: (Fuel on a loop).

The equivalent for you might be to get in your car, fill the petrol tank, drive a thousand miles - and find you still have a full tank of petrol at the end of your journey. And that idea alone would be enough to send a cold shudder through the treasury.

To understand this theory we have to incorporate our previous postulate, and slightly rephrase it somewhat. Rather than say, as Einstein did, that time is relative, we say: (Acceleration and weight are relative to time and motion, but time itself is not).

To extend this thinking still further, we will also employ a natural system of balanced forces: (Everything retains an equal parity). Just like a set of large scales with equal weight distribution.

What we intend to achieve here, is a principle where we upset the universe itself. We are going to become an irritant within its own universal dimension. Once this irritant is identified, our universe should theoretically decide to evict us; and the only way this event might happen, is if it chooses to accelerate us.

Yet, the object of our endeavour is to always mislead it. Some might term it trickery. We play the greatest joke on the universe imaginable, and fool it into believing that an event is taking place, when really it isn't. To understand what we hope to achieve, it's important we clarify our intentions. When we talk candidly of playing tricks on the universe, we must appreciate the severity of our attempts to produce that desired effect we need. If we assume our universe is carefully crafted, so its internal matrix's is designed and constructed to always retain an atomic parity. Or what we said was balanced forces.

We assume our universe is so perfect, its like a plate spinning on a magician's stick. If it ever dramatically slowed down, it might upset its balance and the whole thing may end-up in one huge heap in the corner.

Science might term this, a Big Crunch singularity: (The opposite of a Big Bang singularity). But let's suppose we could interfere with this perfect alignment, and place within it an extra weight. For our purposes we could use the density of atomic particles.

If we took a large nuclear reactor, and applied a strategy inside, where atomic particles had their weight diminished, say neutrons, we should produce an effect easily identifiable by the universe. You might like to think of it like balanced scales, only now another weight is placed on one end! If you were to realign your scales, you would need another weight proportionate to the first; to make them balance again. But our universe would have no such luxury, and so, to strike a parity it would quickly begin accelerating any increased weight under a belief extra volumes of mass would be introduced; if of course we keep in mind mass is measured by its resistance to acceleration.

We say at this point, if our universe did do this, parity or balanced forces would quickly return, and our universe would once again have obtained a comfortable weight. Yet for us, we now introduce that trickery we spoke of, for we will prohibit the universe from achieving its aims, by allowing both sections of a hypothetical vessel, as an example, to rotate as equal opposites.

And this would mean, regardless of the density inside the craft, no amount of acceleration may ever achieve balanced forces, as the sum total of our craft's production always reaches zero.

What we termed for easy recognition, as non-time.

To apply a convenient analogy for the reader we will simplify things still further, and show with a quick thought experiment what we mean.

Imagine an oyster, and in it is placed a piece of grit. We suggest this piece of grit upsets our oyster, and the one thing it would dearly love to do, is eject it. It would like to spit it out, and stop the annoyance. But the oyster faces a problem. Its construction refuses any attempt to dispel the offending material, and so, to satisfy the oyster, a pearl is spun.

We might like to now conclude, on universal dimension, the same principle applies. Our universe would consider any change in its universal density, in the same manner as an oyster irritated by a piece of grit. But our universe cannot spin a pearl, so therefore chooses another, more acceptable route. That of acceleration.

Yet as we devised a system where the sum total of all equations reach zero, regardless of any accelerant involved, our universe might consider this application, no more than an infinitely, unassailable task. The logical assumption to make is, no matter how fast the universe moves our craft, the desired effect would naturally be negligible, even if it moved the said vessel at a thousand times the velocity of light.

We could even assume, as we move gravity at this point, rather than light, a craft could travel from one side of the universe to the other in the blink of an eye, providing the atomic density in the craft reached a proportionate level of mass equivalent to that of our universe. We might even be able to determine the velocity as impulsion: (An accelerant determined by its weight not is duration). But although we have shown here how this new methodology is achieved by solid- state shells, there is no reason why the analogy may not be applied with particle energy flows, on a fixed state vessel. The achievement would unfurl in exactly the same way. But by using free moving equal opposite motion, it might even explain why certain individuals witness triangular shaped vessels. Because, although I found the original problem perplexing, a longer scrutiny resulted in a belief, that if we are accurate here, a triangle once released from a solid-state, could produce a rotating entity, which in motion produces twice the distance for half the weight ratio return. It's an interesting concept and warrants further investigation.

Yet, perhaps our biggest problem might arise, not just from the advanced pieces of kit any extraterrestrial might adapt and travel here in, but from the possible potential any advanced craft might be capable of.

If we extend our theory somewhat, open it up and bring it to its obvious conclusion, we may just gain a small insight into one very other practical piece of technology that could be extracted from the hypothesis: That of weaponry.

When we discussed an application, making light move two directions simultaneous, thus allowing time to be cancelled, one evident thought leapt out at me.

I haven't broached the subject so far, as I never like papers designed to scare. They always seem to lack credibility, and deal in rhetoric. But if I'm honest, with this theory, I think it should be mentioned, but not taken as an ideal designed to frighten people.

If we evaluate what we did, moving light two ways rather than one, we must assume that during a spacecraft's journey, the potential arises to store any energy manufactured from the vessel's natural laws of motion: A touch like a dynamo on a bicycle wheel. Only on a journey across the universe, the amount of stored energy could be truly awesome.

We can assume, if a bicycle wheel in motion produces enough energy to transmit a beam of light, then a craft in motion may produce enough energy to literally wipeout a planet in one shot. There is no reason why this should not happen, as the application is already understood quite clearly today.

When we scramble fighters to intercept these vehicles, we might be dealing with technological power so phenomenal that the simple press of a button could send Earth screaming to oblivion. We commit basic technology against these highly advanced craft at our peril. One may even say, they do nothing except evaluate our potential, and if they do do that, we might ask why?

We already said their possible mission is probably one of observation. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore the consequences which may manifest. Before our short rewrite of Einsteinian physics, it seemed silly to mention such things. But once a route is found, where we make the impossible, possible, a more serious appraisal needs exploration.

Science might ignore what we say here; and that's their prerogative. We cannot force anyone to believe what we tell them. The mere suggestion of forcing people to believe what others purport is a nonsense. We said, the only way to convince people is with science, evaluated under laboratory conditions and forensically analysed. We made provisions for this, something no other paper has ever done on this subject. We said there is an avenue to measure what we say: The rise and fall of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler.

But science would protest at this juncture, and tell any ufologist they would not waste valuable telescope time on such a project, even though they currently pursue a SETI (Search for extraterrestrial Intelligence) themselves. The irony of this theory is, if we are right, signals from another world could never be detected anyway, as inevitably the maximum measurement point is that exertion of force: A point between two stars. But if science does wish to be intransigent to this theory, and does refuse to advance ufologist's comprehension of our wider, majestic universe, there is another alternative they might try. That of pen-traces.

Theoretically, science should hold massive amounts of data on previous recordings of stars. If they do, there is no logical reason why these glitches shouldn't have been overlooked in the past. As we talk of just one movement, perhaps once or twice a year, they may have been seen as self correcting faults in the telescope itself. I would strongly advise this investigation, for if not carried out, and our postulate is accurate, mankind might miss the greatest gift ever offered him: The opportunity to understand we are not alone in the universe, but are simply one of many millions of speices hidden discreetly by a universal anonymity, portrayed as the most magnificent paradox ever seen.

Faster than light: Relativity links below:




  Print Version -   Print Article  


Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |