| |
| Alien |  (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? Ad are they like in the movie, Alien, Aliens 1, Aliens 2, Aliens 3? I doubt it!
(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.
Beyond Light Speed: Essay Paper 1
Faster Than Light 1
|
|
| |
|
» 
