| |
| Astronauts |  Albert 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 tru;y 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
UFOs:
Faster Than Light 1
|
|
| |
|
» 
