Universe Book Banner.

Time travel or time windows.

fourth dimensional space time.
How about space time?

Time is a small commodity that has become exclusively mankind's obsession. There is none of us who could get through life without time, that most basic commodity. Most of us would probably find it difficult even getting out of bed in the morning without time. Our lives are shaped, governed and cynically manipulated by that most obtuse of all laws, that of time. And most fail to understand it inextricably linked to Einstein, special relativity and light

For most people, the ordinary man and woman in the street, it wouldn't prove too complex if someone asked them, what is time? Most would instantly revert to the time piece on their wrist, the clock on the wall, or any other facilitent which usually ticks away with an anonymous application, forgotten about until we desire its automotive nature.

It seems so inoffensive in itself, time; but if we apply a more esoteric background to it, do you still think you would comprehend time's strange mechanics? How about fourth dimensional space time? time travel, or time windows? What about the motion and movement of Planets due to the elementary laws of gravity? Special relativity, or the velocity of light, which, according to Einstein is a constant in a vacuum?

And what if I told you, a week could measure the same as a month, or a month the same as a year? How about if I said all time has an equality that theoretically shows no discrimination between one body and another, regardless of its duration?

Do you still see time, as an inoffensive little commodity, and are you still prepared to take time for granted? I doubt it.

Most people, those with any common sense would probably runaway in confusion, and to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't blame them. But unfortunately, if we really do wish to understand ufology, we must first Rewrite Special Relativity and sequestrate time from the equation.

But we need to understand this strange beast, time, and ask ourselves why?

Well, as we just said, without time, the world would quickly fall apart, quite literally. If we didn't have any standard time on planet Earth we would apply to a principle of equivalence: All objects in a vacuum fall with an equal ratio: Weightlessness. This basically means our planet would decay just like that of an astronauts bones if left in space too long. The reason why long duration's in space cannot be achieved without introducing levels of gravity once again.

Therefore, from that simple example, decay, we quickly begin to associate gravity with time. The more gravity there is the longer the time frame.

We might now assume then, that the faster one moves, the stronger the laws of gravity become, as the volume of mass increases. Thus time shrinks. What some term the elasticity of time. And with small amounts of time, this really becomes quite insignificant, but over a more extreme period, under the laws of physics, it has a profound effect, especially on those travelling across universal dimensions.

We already said earlier on, that if we travel at the speed of light time will shrink and thus two people at different velocities would witness periods expire at different rates: One month on earth, fifty years in space. And I know it sounds ridiculous, but it happens to be a proven event. That is as long as no one attempts to do what I'm about to do.

For this to work, we have to use our imaginations somewhat. We have to now create an apartheid between us and the universe itself. We will continue to support basic time for us and elementary laws on universal theories. That is, as long as gravity applies to us, or any other body of matter, time can have definitive rudiments that allow its elasticity. For our universe though, what I intend to do is broach, and then breach the natural laws of physics, and perception as we imagine it, and move more candidly in to the power George Bernard Shaw called wisdom.

What I wish to do at this point, is show not only the universe not to be expanding, the period in which light reaches us wrong, but also, with a touch of heresy, the stars we see each night are not actually stars at all: But are exertion points of force. And I say this is heresy, because to even suggest a star is not a star, is tantamount to madness, or at least it would-be for most people. But before I'm castigated by the great and good, and some who are not so great and not so good, remember one thing, in space astronauts do not see stars at all. We might even call this the duplicitous application of time: One law for us, one for the universe. But let us bear in mind, these actions take place for a very good reason; so we might all be treated equal.

No doubt most of you would have heard, via your television or magazines, scientists talking openly about how it takes light a specific amount of time to reach us here on earth. They categorize this in light weeks, months and years: The distance light travels in that period. And while we will not particularly contest this view, we must ask ourselves, if light is actually travelling towards us from another star, or an exertion of force we just mentioned? And there is a very good reason to ask this question.

The simple reason for posing this difficult, but crucial question is, based around how we measure the universe. Science suggests our universe to be constantly expanding, we witness stars gradually distancing themselves from our position equidistantly. Science tells us this proves our universe to be conclusively expanding. And this progressional retreat of stars is known simply as, The Hubble constant: Our universe constantly expands and shows Galaxies moving father apart from each other. And this in itself really dismisses a steady-state theory, if espoused with a Big Bang singularity. But if we can show light not being emitted from a star but travelling towards it, two directions simultaneous, from a central exertion point of force, then not only will we conclude time does not exist, but also space time, spacetime curvature, fourth dimensional spacetime and the Hubble constant are conclusively wrong.

But to achieve such an astounding piece of theoretical physics, we must first ask ourselves what this exertion of force is?, and explain it simply.

An exertion of force, is a point between two bodies of mass, in this case two stars. If we say light first appears at this point, light would then travel to both stars simultaneously. Therefore, if two people stood round either star, they would both witness the same event together. There would be no time disparity, and thus each individual would conclude no different time from the other individual's time, regardless of distance between them. Both observers, as we might call them, witness the same event together, because of gravitational influence. With each body, both observers stand on, producing an individual body of mass, they distribute their universal force at a point equivalent to them both.

This point must be an imaginary central point, and thus, the appearance of starlight is merely a fictitious event. It only seems to be an impression of a real event, because the waves which permeate between both bodies of mass have decided this point is the strongest point of force between the two.

For an easy identification of this event, we can use a more simplistic thought experiment. If we imagine down here on Earth two teams of tug-of-war lift-up a rope, and take-up the slack. Where would the strongest point of force be? If you said central to the rope, providing both teams are of equal strength, you'd be absolutely right. They heave! Which team experiences the force first, if both exert the same primordial force? If you said they experience it together, well done again.

Now apply that simple analogy to the universe, only this time each team is a body of mass, and the production of light is the rope.

In your mind, you should see light break central to both bodies of mass, and travel to both stars together, with no time disparity involved, and understand that if two people stood around each of those stars, they would both see the same event simultaneous.

At that precise moment in time, no observer witnesses any event before any other observer, and thus everywhere in the universe becomes today. And with that theory, we have just shown how to extract that proverbial tunnel of time we promised to during the introduction of this short book. At the same time, we even managed to relegate all of Einstein's laws on special relativity to the recycle bin.

Let's briefly cap on how we managed to achieve that.

We managed to achieve it by showing time for the universe simply does not exist in any perceivable format. We simply showed all observers should witness all events equally, and thus to determine the velocity of light is not an accurate science. The overriding factor amongst the theory, is the fact we chose a point of force between two bodies of mass, rather than a body of mass itself. And then we allowed light to move both directions simultaneous. Therefore, from a point between two bodies of mass stars we can now, due to the exertion of gravity, apply Sir Isaac Newton's second and third laws.

Let's show a brief example to help us understand the methodology:

If two bodies of mass stars are of an equivalent mass to each other, then the strongest exertion of force will be an equal distance from them both. Thus light will break exactly central to both bodies, and travel to them both in an exact amount of time. From this scenario we conclude, the velocity of light to be a constant in a vacuum, as it travels the same distance to each reciprocal body at the exact same speed. What we might term 1a (one acceleration).

But if we suddenly show two bodies of mass again, but this time make one twice the density of the other, then the breakage point of light must logically move to a position two thirds from the weakest body of mass, but only one third from the strongest body of mass.

Paradoxically though, a new acceleration weight is introduced - and we witness light move twice the velocity one way, in comparison with just once the velocity the other way. What we term 2m=1a (two mass equals one acceleration) to 1m=2a (one mass equals two acceleration). But what you should notice from this new formula, is once again both movements of light still reach their respective observer at exactly the same time, thus neither distinguishes a different time from the other.

The reason this becomes so fundamentally important, and perhaps more important than any other single theory we might include in this work, is it shows light therefore cannot be a constant in a vacuum.

And once we achieve the ability to breach the velocity of light, universal transport is not only possible, but becomes more likely than not, probable. However, science would treat the theory with a large pinch of salt, which means it becomes vital for us to raise a few eyebrows and lock in a definitive prediction to validate what we say. By creating a universal, or universal theories on light transmission via a mass volume level, we show we could use Newtonian law to produce elementary movement of the exertion point of force: (that pin-prick of light we witness as a star.)

But moreover than this, if any individual body of mass can move the image of light we witness as a star, then we must conclude when using a radio telescope to measure the event, its sums have already been accounted for. This will allow us a plausible reason why we cannot use a Doppler effect to show other Planets in orbit around other stars. (And I do know some universities insist they have found up to fifteen Planets already, but if you look closely at the rotation in conjunction to the relative star's volume of mass, you will see they are primordial planet's, more likely than not large Gas giants whose mass produces the same effect as the star itself.) A true planet, one similar to our own, would be difficult to detec because its volume of mass, over a long distance would be incredibly weak.

The reason why this signal shouldn't appear by standard Doppler measurement is we are merely measuring that exertion of force we spoke of; a brokerage of light with no mass whatsoever. But if we were to show our theory correct, we could still use a Doppler measurement to prove it.

What we need to look for, is rather than a primary equation: (An emission of light already visible as a star,) but choose a secondary equation: (The rise and fall of starlight during an eclipse in another solar system.)

If starlight is produced as an holographical image, and can be determined by a volume of mass, then during an eclipse this will produce a higher level of force, and thus starlight must relocate in the sky. Once that happens we should witness light lift, until the Moon passes from behond the planet, and then light will fall back to its original position. This will then tell us every star might have mature Planets located around it; but we fail to see them during elliptical movement, as stars themselves, create a mirrored ellipse between any two bodies of mass. And if this was the case, then over a long duration we should be able to accurately predict a saros: (A positive prediction of when an eclipse will take place on a specific date, reflective of the same prior date measured over a sustainable period in history.) At that point the theory wouldn't even be questioned. It would become absolute.

There is an equation to go with this, but I'm reliably told publishers extract them as they might scare people. If you don't see the equation here you know my source was right, if it is still in, then I'm publishing this work via the web. God bless the web!

The equation reads: X=C3. The strongest exertion of force, between any two bodies of mass, equals C the constant cubed.

And really it was essential to include that small equation, because it offers a much stronger validity to our theorem. Without it, people would call the idea speculative. But now we've provided a sense of identification, to validate the theory, on universal terms, it makes it much more difficult to just ignore it. But I guess they still will.

As we have now rewritten special relativity, we must ask ourselves what this will allow us to achieve? Whether the prospect of the new theory is merely significant or insignificant?

The crux of the problem is, before we achieved this monumentous task, spaceships and extra-terrestrial life could not make the long hazardous journey to planet earth; there simply was no possibility of the event ever happening. But as so many people, 164 million at the last count, claim to have witnessed such strange phenomenon which surrounds ufos, that couldn't possibly happen before our rewrite, we have to understand, that not only will this rewrite allow alien species to come here, but perhaps more importantly, it will allow us to visit them one day in the distant future.

Simply by changing the emission and transmission velocities of light, we have made the impossible, possible. We removed time. We never sought to cloud the issue by dealing in ambiguities or uncertainty. We never hid from meeting the most difficult challenge in science, placing in a prediction and an equation, nor did we seek to hide from what people have seen, or deal in preconceived theory from the past.

In this short work, we approached the subject matter practically from a logical direction, and offered science the ultimate challenge ourselves, the opportunity to prove us either right or wrong by using lare radio Telescopes to measure the event. All they have to do is point a telescope skywards at the stars and wait for a natural event in another solar system. But will they accept the challenge?

That is something only the scientific community can answer. We could speculate on their response, and maybe try to anticipate their reaction, which initially will be hostile. Because any book that claims to have rewritten special relativity will initially be derided. There will be lots of nasty name calling before any type of evaluation is made. And this I'm afraid, is the nature of the beast.

We have shown how science can prove the theory right or wrong, simply by positioning and then pointing a radio telescope at the stars. And they might not even need to do that.

If they have pen-traces: previous recordings from their telescopes, then by quickly trawling their way through these measurments they might be able to locate an associated reading from the past.

This possible reading would show-up as a single glitch, and might have been previously dismissed or overlooked, because the register wasn't constant. But we have to remember at this point, as the event we would expect them to search for will be no more than a single movement, at any given time, only one anomaly will be recorded. And as the event will happen very seldom, there is no good reason why anyone should have been drawn to it in the past. It could have been logged as a self correcting fault in the telescope itself.

Unfortunately for us though, there is another reason why the scientific community might refuse to measure the prediction, or simply hide it if detected.

I know I should try, where possible, to stay away from conspiracy theories, but as there seems to be ever surmounting evidence they do take place, we have to ask, whether governments would really allow science to disclose such a profound event? Could they be trusted and relied upon to offer the truth?!

If we understand, America panicked when Orson Wells' transmission of 'war of the world's' was broadcast by radio, I think it might be fair to ask if they would permit the general public an insight into the arrival of the ships? And I know that might sound a touch paranoid, but we do have to look at it from their perspective just momentarily.

Ever since that fateful night many years ago, when that delicate subject of Ufo identification and arrival was broached, during world war 2, there has been endemic denial of alien activity. And we will discuss that matter more fully, later on in our chapter dedicated to UFO phenomenon. But for the time being, we'll deal with governments' refusal to accept these events.

As I was saying, and to reiterate, if we look at the argument from their point of view, we could convince ourselves, there must naturally be a deep seated impotence that sets in.

What could they do if planet Earth was attacked by spaceships tomorrow? Nothing! If an Alien race told world governments to surrender, they would have no choice, except to surrender. And for all governments, that must be a very frightening prospect.

Therefore, as long as government can claim, by using special relativity the event not possible, the people remain at ease. And for that reason, government might consider it in their political interest to cloak science in a veil of secrecy, refuse to fund further projects if their secret is revealed - or simply sack people, destroy their careers or hound them for the rest of their lives.

I did say, that perhaps it's just me being paranoid, which I doubt. We all know how western governments indulge a culture of secrecy, hide things from us, usually until it's too late, and then expect us to clear-up their mess. And I would imagine this will be no different. If a rise and fall of star light does take place, as predicted by this theory, everything on our world, and in science, the velocity of light, time and our perception of ufology has to change.

We could envisage a whole new set of beliefs: Ufologist who argue the case for ufos may at last be taken seriously, as government could no longer dismiss individuals as cranks, and our entire future might need to be reassessed. Our whole existence may just be in doubt. We are, at this juncture in time, a defenceless planet, drifting aimlessly around an ordinary star, waiting our fate. Whether or not we survive the future is very much dependant on how we apply the present. And to simply ignore what we say here, may literally signal the demise of us all. But only time will tell. Maybe we shall sign our own death warrant, with the signature of our own ignorance. We might even say, for us earthlings, time, is running out!

So how do we convince sceptical people and science?

The easy answer to that is, you can't. If someone doesn't wish to be convinced by an argument, then they never will never be convinced by it, regardless of how credible it seems. The moment people entrench themselves, they will never concede ground. And while science has clung to its evaluation of time, for nearly a century, and never once sought to really challenge our understanding of it, they have indeed prohibited, and stifled open debate, and ridiculed anyone who has dared contravene their own personal academic pursuit.

Our governments have sponsored ignorance and denial; they have failed to see the idiocy of reticence. The American government alone has spent nearly 300 billion dollars on rocket technology, and are even now, as we speak, attempting to build a reusable rocket. They have been joined in this litany of madness by the Russians and Europeans, in an attempt to construct a space-station. And as huge volumes of cash are washed down the plughole to satisfy idle curiosity, time for us, like the grains of sand in an hour glass, slowly evaporate.

And the witnessing of this policy poses a more fundamental question than that: For if they don't believe what we say here, and consistently cling to their view of special relativity, where the hell do they think they are going? A natural assumption to make is, if science remains of the belief a spaceship cannot make a journey to planet Earth because the velocity of light remains constant, then our advancement to visit them around their home world is precluded at that time.

No one could be of the belief, you can have one, but not the other. We could attempt to build bigger rockets, with even heavier fuel loads, but again do nothing other than defeat the object of our desire.

The problem remains, the faster our rocket would move, the higher its volume of mass becomes: (a body measured by its resistance to acceleration). And so, there is only one alternative, and that is to move away from special relativity and time, and explore the potential of new, original thought. Only then will we begin to convince people of the practicalities of space exploration, travel and communication with other life forms. And until we can show people, with tangible evidence this a real probability, no one will believe us.

We might even like to paraphrase Einstein at this point and show the futility of those that will not lift themselves from their trenches of indifference.

Einstein once said: "How do you tell a rich man if he never spends any money?"

We could ask ourselves though: How will we ever be able to move beyond our own mortal realms if we refuse to evaluate new theory. It is sometimes what sounds benign that offers a catalyst to advance. We have to remember, seeing is not always believing, nor is believing always seeing. The universe at the very best of times is no more than an awful paradox specifically designed to mislead us.

And so, we can move forwards into the next millennium with an aim to keep things the way they always have been in the twentieth century; continuously using rockets that cannot progress through a solid Newtonian wall, rockets that apply to the restriction of special relativity, and hold us back. Or we can abandon the past, search diligently for a new route and explore, what some might say is perverse universal theories.

But what we can be sure of is, if we cling to what we have got, we simply cannot venture forwards beyond our own solar system.

Therefore, we have two very difficult choices to make about special relativity; either deny ourselves any chance whatsoever of a future or beyond this mortal coil, or bite the bullet and open-up new avenues of debate.

In this work we rewrote special relativity for one specific purpose, to advance

Below is a list of chapters for the Metaphysics Anthology. The book itself is designed as abit of fun! One man thinking out loud. You should not see it as science, merely enjoy the imagination of the human mind in full swing.

  Go To Original Article From Universe Galaxies And Stars.  

  Go To Universe Galaxies And Stars Home Page