| |
| Starlight |  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 Continued
Time Travel: Essay Paper 2
Faster Than Light
|
|
| |
|
» 
