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

Velocity of Light: Page 3 of 3.

Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To facilitate how this works, place your hands together as though in prayer, and then open your arms to their greatest extent. Imagine that is light rather than your hands moving. Then imagine at their furthest reach, two stars come in to being.

This is the beauty and simplistic nature of this theory. And so, now we have shown, not only a theory, explained simply in words, but one that also contains both its mathematics and obvious prediction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, the object of our endeavour is to always mislead it. Some might term it trickery. We play the greatest universal joke imaginable, and fool it into believing that an event is taking place, when really it isn't.

To understand what we hope to achieve, it's important we clarify our intentions. When we talk candidly of playing tricks on the universe, we must appreciate the severity of our attempts to produce that desired effect we need. If we assume our universe is carefully crafted, so its internal matrix's is designed and constructed to always retain an atomic parity. Or what we said was balanced forces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could even assume, as we move gravity at this point, rather than light, a craft could travel from one side of the universe to the other in the blink of an eye, providing the atomic density in the craft reached a proportionate level of mass equivalent to that of our universe. We might even be able to determine the velocity as impulsion: (An accelerant determined by its weight not is duration).

But although we have shown here how this new methodology is achieved by solid-state shells, there is no reason why the analogy may not be applied with particle energy flows, on a fixed state vessel. The achievement would unfurl in exactly the same way. But by using free moving equal opposite motion, it might even explain why certain individuals witness triangular shaped vessels. Because, although I found the original problem perplexing, a longer scrutiny resulted in a belief, that if we are accurate here, a triangle once released from a solid-state, could produce a rotating entity, which in motion produces twice the distance for half the weight ratio return. It's an interesting concept and warrants further investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Start  Go Back  Metaphysics Chapters

  Go To Print Article  

Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

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