| |
| DeepField: The Hubble Telescope |  Maybe they report it of a night time, with flashing lights, and performing the most outrageous stunts. Accelerated speeds, disappearing from radar screens, vanishing into the unknown? These events are reported all the time to newspapers and magazines, the authorities and powers that be. Science pooh-poohs the idea. If a member of the public claims to have seen an even of the extraterrestrial kind, they are dismissed as mad, misinformed, deluded or plain daft. Although no thorough investigation has taken place, or their claim forensically investigated by those with the ability to do so. Contrast this with renowned scientists who operate the Hubble telescope. Hubble was given the job of searching the deepest, darkest recesses of the universe. The project was called DeepField, undertaken by the Hubble Telescope.
According to Einstein, the Hubble telescope should have reported back newly forming galaxies. These.galaxies should have been so old, they only appear as embryonic shells; galaxies in their infancy, slowly constructing themselves in a cosmic, primordial soup. Yet Hubble didn't report any such thing. Quite the contrary. When the dust settled, and scientists had exhausted themselves, burning the midnight oil and proposing every logical answer, the results were dismissed. The project was quietly forgotten about and the data filed in the Don't Know drawer. It was best not to rock the boat, contradict Einstein or upset the establishment. Careers could be ruined overnight, funding stopped. My god, people could be humiliated in public and treated as daft as anyone who claims to have seen UFOs. And no one was going to volunteer for that. It was easier to keep their mouth shut, their heads down below the parapet and hope the whole unfortunate episode simply vanished. Yet there is one logical explanation to Hubble's DeepField experiment, one I've realised, and I almost certain many other academics have too: The Hubble telescope wasn't looking backwards, it was looking forwards. It saw the future! And that presented all sorts of nasty problems. Einstein was wrong! The Big Bang Singularity is wrong! Hubble himself is wrong! Oh god, what to do? With this in mind, it suggests the future is already there, and that means the universe must have originally composed itself, for if it didn't, the future would be there for us to observe in the first place. Therefore, its not unreasonable to speculate that those who claim to have witnessed UFO phenomena are actually witnessing our own future.
If a craft produces its own volume of mass, then a comprehensive change should take place around it, as would a person (ghost) or what we term visitation of extraterrestrial species. Many people claim to have seen alien species, although little or no tangible evidence is in the public domain to prove such a claim. And maybe that's because it cannot be placed in the public domain. Maybe, under the laws of physics it becomes a theoretical impossibility to show tangible evidence of extraterrestrial existence as what these people claim to see, is no more than our future. It's not unreasonable to speculate, that if we see the past, then we can see the future. But how would we be able to see the future if it hasn't already happened?
When I postulated theory on an alternative to the Big Bang singularity, I showed how the universe might have been born from a single block of carbon. What I postulated was an idea where one universe acts as a catalyst for the next. As the first universe opens and expands because of the intense heat, a secondary place in the carbon would fracture. As the first universe cools and contracts, the second point fuses. From the central point energy races away, while all the material condenses to a strategical central point.
Once all universal material is located in this place, the universe stops turning, then begins to unwind. This led me to believe not only in a preordained universe, but one which retains a steady-state principle.
God forward one page back one page
|
|
| |
|
» 
