|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
UFOs, Aliens, Extraterrestrials and Other Intelligent Life.
Do you believe in UFOs, Aliens, Extrater- restrials and Other Intelligent Life? Maybe some of you do, maybe some of you don't. Who knows! But what we do know is, somewhere beyond our own mortal coil, secreted in the never regions of space, probably lies an infinite amount of other worlds. It would be ridiculous to believe, that among all of those billions of stars, there isn't at least a proportionate amount of other worlds: some more advanced than us, others less advanced than ourselves, and a whole lot on a par with our own stagnated development.
I say stagnated because I believe, when it comes to technological advancement on Spacecraft research, our endeavours appear at best myopic.
The leading proponent of Solar System research down here on planet Earth is the US space programme, NASA. Nasa's space programme consists of a shuttle, a few old rockets, several extra planetary probes and a space based telescope (Hubble.)
Apart from that, the amount of kit deployed is negligible. What a poor, sorry state of affairs, when we compare our progress to that which is visiting our magnificent world. Round craft covered in lights, sleek black triangle craft lit in each corner with orbs of bright red light. Weird shaped long sausage type vehicles which hover in the night sky, abduct humans and take them away to commit the most unspeakable acts upon. Bodies probed, samples taken, memories distorted.
Some victims claim the abduction process continues over, and over again, small grey humanoid type Aliens visit them in the dead of night and show precious little courtesy for their feelings or the psychological damaged caused. Some people claim their lives have literally been destroyed by these most blatant acts. But how true are they? Are the witnesses to this strange phenomena telling the truth, making it up, or simply misguided?
A lot of academics argue that the amount of UFO sighting's has only increased over the last few decades because of the advent of science fiction films on television. With TV shows like StarTrek, DeepSpace Nine and The Next Generation, and the abundance of B/W cult classics from the fifties and sixties, with wobbly music and cardboard sets, members of the public are more inclined to make reports of strange lights in the sky, huge metallic objects and strange creatures seen lurking in the shadows. In some respect, I agree with the belief that these reports have increased due to the aforementioned television and sci-fi movies. But does this give scientists the right to categorize all claims in the same genre, and conclude all UFO sighting's, and claims of extraterrestrial activity and UFO phenomena are bogus?
The first thing we have to remember when investigating this strange unearthly phenomena is, out of all of the tens of millions of sighting's of weird, unexplained activity surrounding our planet, it only takes one account of these extraordinary events to be accurate, and thus make the whole prospect of Extraterrestrial life a reality. Just one!
If we're honest with ourselves, we have to agree that there are a lot of cranks out there, lonely people who desperately need to embellish the truth to get noticed. There are certain people with psychiatric problems who need to feel the focus of attention and simply stand out from the crowd, perhaps because they have failed to stand out in any other way. That's not me putting people down. It merely happens to be a fact. But what we shouldn't forget, is there are an awful lot of decent, credible people from very respected occupations and professions who have no reason to lie or embellish the truth: police officers, airline pilots, doctors, lawyers and other professionals from the military and civilian establishments who have recounted very genuine accounts of contact with those from another world.
Should we dismiss them all?
One of the first sighting's of a strange vessel doing something it shouldn't be doing in the sky, in broad daylight, came from a farmer in England. The farmer hadn't been watching the latest batch of science fiction programmes, listening to his local radio station or reading glossy magazines or detailed media accounts of alien life.
In fact, the farmer reported a "strange round metalic object hovering over his field" in the late seventeen hundreds, before television and radio was invented, before newspapers even considered the possibility of other lifeforms from beyond our own beautiful planet. More sighting's from simple country folk poured in over the coming years. From these early visitations in England, I think we can deduce that these honest, hard working, respectable people had no knowledge of alien life. They had no reason to gild the lily or report events they had no understanding of. There was no money to be money, no status to be gained. Just an impartial account of unexplained events that occurred as the went about their everyday business content in the knowledge, every day would be as mundane as the next. So what did they see?
Those who claim a media association with what individuals see through our TV screens, might also like to consider the fact, ordinary people who wish to stretch the truth, tend to do so on the basis of reality, rather than a contrived or concocted Hollywood fantasy. Therefore, if as scientists, politicians, psychiatrists wish to believe, that these individuals are fantasises who wish to be taken seriously, why don't they construct their fabricated tales of extraterrestrial life on the basis of something much more plausible.
Why spinning alien craft covered in an array of flashing, multi-coloured lights, or deathly silent black triangles. Why don't they just claim to have witnessed huge rickets, some solidarity with the technology we use down here on planet Earth , so the public would strike a greater balance with the two? It would seem a more pragmatic approach, after all, we also see copious amounts of rockets on television, and know our own scientists use these as a way of investigating our own mysterious solar system. It would seem more logical to report some form of rocket ship if you wished to add substance to a claim when promoting a theory based on visual recognition. It's something we can all strike an affinity with. But they don't: Why? Perhaps what we need to do here, is not just look at whether those who make such wild, unsubstantiated statements about UFO activity and Extraterrestrial life are telling the truth, but why academia refuses to accept what these people say is the truth?
Why does academia, and the powers that be treat these decent folk in such a malign and disingenuous way? Are the powers that be scared? Scared someone might let the cat out of the bag at what is really going on around us?
Has some sinister Alien species already made contact, threatened them with devastating reprisal if their secret is unveiled? Or do scientists simply realise their own feebleness in technological advancement, and refuse to accept the possibility any species other than them can create such technological wizardry, our own achievements are basically worthless?
One of the reasons why the very insular world of science refuses, point-blank, to have any truck with these repots of interstellar spaceships, mysterious lights in the night sky, intergalactic craft, Alien abduction or any close encounter of the first, second or third kind, is because, under the current laws of physics as we understand them, the prospect of moving a propellant object across the trackless voids of space is not feasibly possible. To any scientist, mathematician or physicist, the velocity of light is constant, (c) which moves at approximately 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum, and nothing, regardless of how superior the technology, may move beyond the speed of light. Let me just digress for a moment and demonstrate how this works.
Imagine our closest star, apart from our own Sun of course, Proxima Centuri. light from Proxima Centuri takes roughly four light years (the distance light travels in that period) to reach us. Therefore, if we advanced our technology, developed a spaceship capable of making this epic journey and visited Proxima Centuri it would take about four years providing our newly constructed craft could reach the velocity of light.
If we made it to Proxima Centuri, said a brief hello, turned straight around, and were arriving home today, we might say the round trip took approximately eight light years.
However, we must remember, that light, or time as we might call it, under Einsteinian physics, shrinks: one month in space at the velocity of light equals fifty years here on planet Earth . This is known as the elasticity of time. Therefore, our journey from Earth , through space and to another Solar System to see the inhabitants of Proxima Centuri might have taken eight light years for the crew of the craft.
But ironically, nearly 4,800 years would have past for those they left behind on Earth .
If our craft was arriving home today then, they would have been enthusiastically waved goodbye by their family and friends down here on Earth , and begun their epic journey about the time Stonehenge was under construction.
To explain this further, anyone who has seen the movie: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, will have noticed, when the big Spacecraft lands on top of the mountain, and they finish communication with synthesized music, the door of the craft lowers and all those missing people coming slowly walking out, with the blinding, incandescent white light behind them. The guys from Earth stand mesmerised in their designer shades, and noticing the pilots of Flight 19, five single prop USAF aircraft which vanished shortly after world war 2, are still of youthful appearance, they comment: Einstein was right then. What they mean by the statement is, because of the elasticity of time, they've hardly aged at all, while we here on Earth are subject to a more highly accelerated decay.
Therefore, at that point, humanity might ask whether it's worth going to Proxima Centuri or not. Who would volunteer for such an epic journey, knowing full well, when they arrive home, maybe fifty or sixty generations of their family have been born and died. And the same problem would face any alien species who chose to travel towards Earth and visit us. The time frames involved are truly staggering. And that's not even to mention what would happen to a human body. If we draw an analogy with fighter pilots flying at Mach 2 need here on earth, we see the necessity to wear special flight suits which assist with the blood flow and allow oxygen to be constantly fed to the brain, who travel at less than 1400 miles per hour. And please note the difference between miles per hour and miles per second. If any would-be space traveller entered the capsule of their Spacecraft and hit the accelerator, then at three or four times the speed of sound, they would start to black out as the blood faces a restriction in its flow around the body.
At six or seven times the speed of sound they would black out completely, lose control of the vessel and the craft crash to Earth in a big ball of flames.
But imagine if we were to change the velocity from six or seven times the speed of sound to the velocity of light. At such an accelerated speed you begin to comprehend how the pilot wouldn't just black out, but how they.would be spread about the inside of their Spacecraft like jam over a slice of bread.
Quite simply we'd have to scrape them off the walls. Although that might be somewhat of an exaggeration, because the moment they pressed the accelerator, the Spacecraft would move violently forwards, compress with an ubiquity, condense down to an infinitesimal size and fuse.
You wouldn't have a mode of transport, you'd have at atomic bomb. mass would quickly convert to energy at the speed of light, or as Einstein put it: e=mc˛. Now you can begin to understand why scientists at best treat any claim of extraterrestrial craft as bunkum.
Another important factor for the academic community, and those who consider alien visitation as ridiculous, comes in the shape of planetary investigation. scientists argues, quite ferociously, that if other life in the shape of an advanced civilisation does visits our planet in an abundance, then we should, theoretically be able to see where they come from.
If we were to measure other solar systems with large radio telescopes, or large array's of radio telescopes, a Doppler registration should be detectable, and show exactly where these intergalactic travellers originate from. But after years of searching the night sky with copious amounts of measuring equipment, nothing conclusive has been found. In fact, the only evidence of planetary existence outside the remit of our own solar system, is several extremely large planets, which are considered by Astronomers to be large gas giants, similar in shape and construction to Jupiter, and incapable of sustaining any form of advanced life.
The consensus among modern day academics is, if there are no other stable, life supporting Planets around other more distant solar systems, then there is no other life out there able to make the journey here to see us at our illustrious home. And so, even if we could skate around the imponderable's of breaching the velocity of light, and protecting the occupants of interstellar spacecraft, the Alien themselves would still need to originate from somewhere in the universe detectable by large measuring equipment here on earth: And so where do they come from? One final argument from scientific community is based around the need to build a propulsion system to drive the said craft. A propulsion system which, even under the laws of physics seems impossible to construct. Therefore, the conclusion from academia seems to remain at best ambivalent. Those who claim to see Extraterrestrial life or their Spacecraft are simply mistaken.
Or at least they were until I came up with one new theory which circumvents all of the aforementioned. a piece of postulation so elegantly constructed, the mere thought of it frightens the life out of me. I built a piece of postulation, complete with measurable prediction that can show why we don't detect other Planets via Doppler measurement, which breeches the velocity of light, which can protect the crew of any Spacecraft from the hostile forces of gravity, and simultaneously act as a propulsion system to drive the vessel to the velocity of light and beyond. In fact it will drive a Spacecraft at any accelerated speed we wish, even from one side of the universe to the other, in the blink of an eye.
With a unique contribution to the laws of physics, I've managed to satisfy all of the necessary criteria and prove unequivocally, that there is the potential to move Spacecraft across the distant voids of space and make the event not only possible, but quite plausible.
What I chose to do was change the initial point where light first appears, and build an alternative hypothesis to existing thinking.
I knew we needed something new, something more radical, something with the ability to sustain modern thinking and put us on a higher plain when it comes to espousing the laws of physics in with a modern policy of advanced thought.
Rather than say light comes from a star, and travels towards us, I allowed light to first appear central to any two stars and move two ways simultaneous. The reason for this was to cancel time on a universal dimension and by doing so remove any possibility of an elasticity of time as Einstein himself promoted. With no time there would be no volume of mass.
This belief can be validated with measurable prediction. When one of the said bodies of mass (stars) fluctuates due to an increase in gravitational influence, the point we see as starlight in the night sky will significantly alter its position in the sky.
Depending on whether we see a solar or lunar eclipse in another Solar System will determine the aberration of starlight. A solar eclipse in a more distant Solar System will cause the pin-prick of starlight to lift slightly before returning to its previous position, whereas a lunar eclipse in another Solar System will effect light in the opposite manner. It will momentarily fall to a lower position in the sky, before lifting and returning to its original locality.
If this is the case, and we should remember it is a unique prediction never before made, and the said point of light does therefore change its position, either by rising or falling within the wider remit of the stars capability, it must be because an outside body of mass has caused it to happen.
The body of mass in this case would be an eclipse itself, either solar or lunar.
A solar eclipse in another Solar System will cause the star to condense considerably, and make the starlight rise fractionally, whereas a lunar eclipse will cause it the fall. See Diagrams below.
But whichever of these two universal events transpires, it will show the theory accurate, and will conclusively prove there is other Planets in thqt star system, for if there wasn't, the event wouldn't be possible in the first place. Only other planetary motion will produce these effects, and thus in their nature offer unequivocal evidence of planetary movement, complete with moons.
Further to this; if starlight does initially break from a location central to any two bodies of mass (stars) and move two directions simultaneous, then it extract any possibility of time. Quite simply, all points in the universe would be equivalent to all other points in the universe, and no one, regardless of their position would be able to determine a point in the universe any different from any other point.
Once we remove time from the equation, and create a non-time environment, the occupant on board the said Spacecraft will not experience the effect of gravity, or a period of time duration different from those they left on their home world.
Unlike Einsteinian physics which perceives a month in space being equivalent to fifty years on earth, here the traveller would experience no time at all, as the capsule he inhabits would be tricked in to thinking he is falling in a weightless environment. And so, to ensure the traveller remains free from other problems which can be equally as hostile as too much gravity, we need to put a slight amount of time back into the equation. Will come to that in a minute.
To understand how this theory works, we have to use an Einsteinian thought experiment and showa muck more visual model. Einstein predicted, that if a clock raced towards us through space at the velocity of light, we would see time shrink. Which is absolutely right.
However, if we were to use the postulate I constructed and change the point where light first breaks and allow it two run directions simultaneously, so they operate as Newton's third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction we can demonstrate the removal of time completely.
Therefore, we wouldn't say as Einstein did, that if a clock raced through space at the velocity, time would shrink, we'd say: if a clock raced through space at the velocity of light, the hands of the clock would turn equally and proportionately backwards to the clock's forward motion. Thus time would always stand still.
If the clock began its journey at say three o'clock, the clock would always read three o'clock. It's a bit like you standing in a room and taking one step forwards; if you then took one step backwards you'd never get anywhere.
This led me to believe a propulsion system could be developed to drive a vessel across the universe at any defined speed, and we could use the universe itself as an engine to drive the spacecraft. And you won't find a bigger, more powerful engine than our mighty universe.
We don't need rocket ships ten miles high, or a nuclear reactor the size of the Empire State Building. Just a little lateral thought, a few good ideas, and the belief in our own ability to make the impossible, possible. It's about confidence, something which seems lacking in the field of modern theoretical physics, and academia.
What I decided to do was apply the theoretical observation I made on the rewrite of Special Relativity; that theory where I chose a different place to make light originate. As previously mentioned, if we move light two directions at once, we can remove time, and with no time, there is no mass. It was this analogy I applied to constructing a hypothetical spacecraft.
To take physics to its next logical stage and achieve this, the craft would be built in three separate stages: an outer shell, an inner shell and a capsule which would sit central to the other two bodies as a free moving object, or within a weightless environment. Here's how the theory works.
Our imaginary Spacecraft is constructed as a large black triangle on the outside, which once in motion would turn clockwise. Directly inside the triangle is a large doughnut nut type counter weight, exactly the same weight as the outer shell. When the craft moves forwards the triangle out shell will turn clockwise, forcing the inner counter weight to turn anti-clockwise. Thus the pair create not only perfect symmetry of motion, but also weight alignment. Directly inside the craft itself is the third, free moving body, or what we term capsule.
The moment the outer shell and inner ring rotate as equal opposites to each other, the capsule finds itself static, suspended on a cushion of zero gravity.
Once the Spacecraft is free of the Planets orbit in space we inject a small amount of energy into the capsule. The moment the energy is injected from a small power supply into the capsule, the universe identifies the energy and considers the universe has been slightly unbalanced.
There is more energy in the universe now than there is mass, thus the universe must realign the two and return them to a state of balanced forces. To return the universe to a state of balanced forces, it would need to move the said Spacecraft at a higher velocity.
By doing this, the universe would believe it could create enough mass to achieve the desired effect of a perfectly balanced state, and once again parity would be achieved, thus creating equal amounts of mass and energy.
However, as the craft is built in three individual stages, the rotation effect would kick in. The outer shell would turn clockwise, while the inner shell turns anti-clockwise, and always leave the capsule believing it is falling as a free moving object.
In other words, the universe wouldn't be able of return a volume of mass to the craft simply because my theory has made it an infinitely unassailable task. In fact, regardless of whatever velocity the universe decides to move the vessel, it would never be able to reach its objective, the reintroduction of balanced forces, because mass could never theoretically be introduced to the vessel.
But as each accelerated movement takes place, and the universe fails to deliver its desired result, the return of mass, it will try a little harder.
What I've done is play a small trick on the laws of physics. I extracted any possibility of the craft applying to universal law, and created an entity that applies to its own universe laws inside the vessel. A kind of anti-universe if you like. It's a bit like a man on an exercise treadmill where he jogs away; building a health sweat, but gets nowhere. The rubber tread just goes round and round and round, and no matter how fast he runs, the speed of the rubber tread keeps pace with him.
Perhaps we can show a better analogy of this by suggesting it to be like a car placed up on a roller bed, like when you take your vehicle for its yearly MOT. To test the car's brakes the mechanic can't take the car out onto the road and slam on the brakes just incase another car slams into the rear and causes death or serious injury to either of the car's occupants.
Therefore, what the test centre does is place the vehicle on a flat bed with double steel rollers at either end. The bed is adjusted until the cars wheels, both front and back lock in between the rollers.
At which point you have a cars wheels suspended between the duel set of rollers. When the rollers are set in motion, the car wheels turn equally and opposite in a different direction to the motion of the steel rollers, thus the car goes nowhere, just like the man on the treadmill.
Only if you were to sit inside the vehicle, you could watch the speedometer in the dashboard begin to climb as if the car was still on the road outside. However, it should be remembered, the car doesn't actually travel anywhere, it remains static in the garage.
All that's happened is the car has been tricked into thinking its moving because of the movement of the roller bed. In space, our newly designed Spacecraft would have the very same problem, only the universe wouldn't be quite as smart as you or me. Where we deduce the problem with the car on the roller-bed to be rectified by taking the vehicle from the roller bed, and placing it back on the road, the universe has no such luxury.
I built the craft to overcome the problem of this by ensuring, regardless of how hard the universe pushes the vessel, it forwards, backwards motion will always counter the universal action.
Therefore, frustrated at its inability to return mass to the spacecraft, the universal action should naturally become precipitous. The natural acceleration will continue until the craft moves at any speed we wish. And the more energy we apply, the quicker the Spacecraft will get to where it's going. The energy supply could be something as simple, and as insignificant as a battery from a transistor.
And although something as simple as a battery could initiate a sequence of events to move a propellant object from one side of the universe to the other, once precipitation and natural momentum enter the equation, it should be remembered, a more sustainable power source would be included, possibly a nuclear reactor.
Yet while doing this, our space travellers inside the capsule will encounter forces just as finite as excessive gravity. In a sustained weightless environment our spacemen will experience bone erosion, cardiovascular problems and death. And so we need to reintroduce time (mass) for them, so the craft retains a parity with the planet's gravitational field they left behind.
To do this, I believe a slight, thermoelectric magnetic field would be introduced between the two original bodies of the vessel, in between the outer , and secondary shell. Imagine the car back on the roller bed, only this time some daft sod's left the handbrake on. That small thermoelectrical field will generate enough energy to return a level of mass, and ensure the problems of a weightless environment are quite easily overcome.
If this method of hypothetical construction of Spacecraft was countenanced, there is no logical reason why a craft shouldn't move from one star system to the next in any time frame imaginable. To travel to our nearest star, Proxima Centuri at light plus six could see a round trip in about six to seven weeks, and the travellers on board the craft would not age at a rate any faster than those family members they left behind.
In fact, unlike Einstein who had no method of showing the consistency of time in space, I have. If two clocks were positioned, one in the craft - and one on the main piece of the astronaut's house, then both clocks will read an identical time to each other with no disparity whatsoever during that period. And on universal distances, Proxima Centuri is no more than a stone's throwaway.
By employing the methodology we discuss here, we could witness mankind's exploration of the universe in the next few hundred years: maybe sooner. But to do so we first need to measure the prediction, the rise and fall of starlight. At that point, we might just understand, that those who claim extraterrestrial encounters of the first, second and third kind are not as mad as we first thought they were. Maybe that got it right, and science got it wrong.
Other pages about ufos and aliens
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||