|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Move Beyond light Speed: Page 1 of 3.
One of the greatest ironies to prohibit belief in ufology, and the movement of ufos, is that of Einsteinian special relativity and the laws of physics, and how to move beyond light speed. 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.
There is little we can do to alter this fact. 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 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 speed 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 speed 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.
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.
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 speed, 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 speed 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 speed, 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 speed 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 speed 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 speed 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 ecumenical 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 ethos 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?
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:
(i) How could any possible UFO circumvent the speed of light?
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||