|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Light: The Ultimate Velocity: Page 2 of 3.
(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?
(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.
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 truly 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.
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 an 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.
I termed this possible event: The rise and fall of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler.
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).
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.
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. 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=mc². (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
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||