| |
| Philosophy |  Little did I know when I first rewrote Einsteinian physics how significant the philosophy would be in other academic areas. I believed when I managed to breech the velocity of light it might at best allow for the movement of extraterrestrial craft, and show why we don't see other planetary motion by means of Doppler registration. But there was more to come. The premiss of this argument is based exclusively round the movement of light and where light first appears. Einstein suggested light comes from a star. He said it travels directly towards us. I blew that belief out of the water by proposing light first appears central to any two stars, and then travels to said stars both, equally and proportionately at the same time. It was a radical idea, upset academia and made me somewhat of an outcast, even though they chose not to measure the built in prediction which accompanied the theory. To show the rewrite of Special Relativity right, I included a measurable prediction. I offered the ability to either prove, or disprove as the case may be, the theories validity by looking for an aberration in the starlight. I argued, that during an eclipse (either lunar or solar) the starlight we see as a pin-prick of light in the night sky will rise or fall, depending on whether the eclipse is lunar or solar. With a solar eclipse it will rise, then fall back to its original position, whereas if it's a lunar eclipse it will perform the opposite task: starlight will fall, before lifting and returning to its normal value. This got me thinking.
It was Edwin Huddle who first mooted the possibility of an expanding universe, and by doing so, destroyed the steady-state theory, (our universe remains constant over time) when he watched the regression of galaxies. What Hubble saw was galaxies drifting away from us with an ubiquity. It seemed sensible, after all, the event could be observed. However, if we take account of what I've said, ie starlight has been evaluated et a different locality, and can alter position dependant on the volume of mass at any given juncture in its history, then Hubble might be as wrong as Einstein. Maybe Hubble hadn't witnessed the regression of galaxies after all. Maybe Hubble had merely witnessed the regression of light, and the universe does remain in a steady-state model. From what I could see, the proposal was more than interesting hypothesis to kick about when there was nothing else to do, in fact it became damn right alarming.
One inescapable fact science doesn't mention when they talk lucidly about iceage phenomenon is the irrefutable fact that our planet is gradually losing its gravity. Suddenly, I understood the deadly implications of what was about to become abundantly obvious: Hubble had witnessed a regression of galaxies, not because our universe is ever expanding, but because we ourselves are losing our gravity. And that meant, our star, the sun must be cooling down.
If our star is slowly relinquishing its gravitational influence on our planet, then under the rewrite of Special Relativity the starlight we see in the night sky must naturally distance itself from our own observational point. And if that is the case, then the secondary implications of any such theory are horrendous for us indeed. I could see our beautiful world was slowly dying.
In the early stages of an impending iceage things might not seem to be too serious. No doubt we'll put it down as an irregular weather pattern or blame el-ninio. But as reality sinks in, something much more apparent will become noticeable: the weather won't heat up again as it has done so often in the past. Humanity and all which surrounds us will be on the cusp of the greatest battle for survival ever witnessed. This is the real Armageddon.
With the idea fermenting in my mind, I decided to model a theory based around the laws of probability and see what would happen if this event gathered momentum, just as any good scientist does with impacting asteroid theory. I said initially, that I don't wish to unduly alarm people, and I hold steadfast to that belief. But I do believe it imperative to warn people of the implications of this theory, so they can lobby their respective parliamentary representitive for a course of investigation to be pursued .
Ice Age 2 Ice Age
|
|
| |
|
» 
