| |
| Theories |  dysfunctional disparity whatsoever. At that precise moment, some might argue it disingenuous to predict a theory which postulates light able to emit from a point, equal to both bodies due to the determining factor of equal levels of mass.
But we should remember what light actually is. Light is no more than an oscillation of photons. What we might term simply, a vibrating particle. As light therefore travels as waves, we have assumed between ourselves light doesn't travel anywhere, but gravity does.
Therefore, we have determined not the velocity of light with this postulate, but the velocity of gravity under a conservation of momentum. If this is the case, then each star we see in the heavens, is not an alternative star at all, but merely a reflection of ourselves.
But as a star would be, under a determined factor that distance again, depending of course on the distance and density of contemporary mass, we must naturally assume, what we see is nothing other than a reflection: A touch like you seeing yourself in the mirror. If we changed that analogy slightly, and said it not so much like you viewing yourself in a mirror, but more a clear, plate glass window, you could now visualise someone else on the opposite side of that window producing the same effect. If both your images blurred at that precise moment, you could assume someone there, but not measure their structural capacity. Place that thought towards the heavens, and you should realise that all stars therefore become what we might term: (Ghost reflections of one another). These bodies would contain no mass, and so, simply could not produce a signal on a Doppler scale: (The change in pitch of frequency from a source to an observer).
This basically means our ability to witness other planets is dramatically stunted. We therefore need to include our prediction at this point, to show two things: One, other planets are there, but remain hidden by their own anonymity, and two, the velocity of light is not that proverdial constant in velocity, but is indeed a constant over a specific.
One of the ironies to this is, we can satisfy both of these theories with exactly the same prediction, which is rather convenient in itself.
What we must first understand is, if we wish to obtain credibility for the arrival of ufos, we must satisfy certain scientific conditions: There would be no point to another ambiguous theory: Our theory needs vindication if we wish the postulation to be taken seriously.
It is therefore our intention, at this stage, to allow science an ambit of investigation. We argued, all stars in our heavens are no more than exertion points of force, and if this is the case, there is a rather unique way to prove us right or wrong. We suggested, as a point of force, starlight must settle in a predetermined position equivalent to any two bodies of mass, and have an ability to move light two directions simultaneous. If this event, on cosmological terms actually happens, then another body, interfering with its credentials, that point of force, our starlight, must instantly relocate to either a higher or lower position in the heavens, which is naturally determined by its new density.
Therefore what we look for during this period is a stronger or weaker elementary force. We might assume this can only happen on universal terms, galactic terms or solar-system terms, anything else would be too insignificant or minuscule for us to measure. Or at least it would at this early inceptual stage. However, if we took a lengthy look at a longer duration, taking into account a quantum principle, we might reach a different conclusion, so I won't nail my colours to the mast just yet.
But to observe this event, we must first re-evaluate the curvature of light around a star: (Light appears to change position during a solar eclipse). What we are going to say is, light doesn't actually curve, it's merely an optical illusion. Rather than imagine light moving from right to left, let's imagine it falls to a lower position; it's just the observers prospective and visual recognition than becomes perverse once the analogy is applied with a higher definition. In other words we use the power of wisdom, rather that a scientific postulate based on accumulated knowledge. That might initially sound a crazy thing to do, but it is all based around a fundamental
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Back to how to build a drive system for spacecraft |
|
| |
|
» 
