| |
| Rockets |  The easy answer to that is, you can't: If someone doesn't wish to be convinced by a theory, then they never will be convinced by a theory, regardless of how credible it seems. The moment people entrench themselves, they will never concede ground. And while science has clung to its evaluation of time, for nearly a century, and never once sought to really challenge our understanding of it, they have indeed prohibited, and stifled open debate, and ridiculed anyone who has dared contravene their own personal academic pursuit.
Our governments have sponsored ignorance and denial; they have failed to see the idiocy of reticence. The American government alone has spent nearly 300 billion dollars on rocket technology, and are even now, as we speak, attempting to build a reusable rocket. They have been joined in this litany of madness by the Russians and Europeans, in an attempt to construct a space-station. And as huge volumes of cash are washed down the plughole to satisfy idle curiosity, time for us, like the grains of sand in an hour glass, slowly run dry.
But the witnessing of this policy poses a more fundamental question than that: For if they don't believe what we say here, and consistently cling to their view of special relativity, where the hell do they think they are going? A natural assumption to make is, if science remains of the belief a spaceship cannot make a journey to planet earth because the velocity of light remains constant, then our advancement to visit them around their home world is precluded at that time.
No one could be of the belief, you can have one, but not the other. We could attempt to build bigger rockets, with even heavier fuel loads, but again do nothing other than defeat the object of our desire.
The problem remains, the faster our rocket would move, the higher its volume of mass becomes: (a body measured by its resistance to acceleration). And so, there is only one alternative, and that is to move away from special relativity and time, and explore the potential of new, original thought. Only then will we begin to convince people of the practicalities of space exploration, travel and communication with other life forms. And until we can show people, with tangible evidence this a real probability, no one will believe us.
We might even like to paraphrase Einstein at this point and show the futility of those that will not lift themselves from their trenches of indifference.
Einstein once said: "How do you tell a rich man if he never spends any money?"
We could ask ourselves though: How will we ever be able to move beyond our own mortal realms if we refuse to evaluate new theory. It is sometimes what sounds benign that offers a catalyst to advance. We have to remember, seeing is not always believing, nor is believing always seeing. The universe at the very best of times is no more than an awful paradox specifically designed to mislead us.
And so, we can move forwards into the next millennium with an aim to keep things the way they always have been in the twentieth century; continuously using rockets that cannot progress through a solid Newtonian wall, rockets that apply to the restriction of special relativity, and hold us back. Or we can abandon the past, search diligently for a new route and explore, what some might say is perverse universal theories.
But what we can be sure of is, if we cling to what we have got, we simply cannot venture forwards beyond our own solar-system.
Therefore, we have two very difficult choices to make about special relativity; either deny ourselves any chance whatsoever of a future or beyond this mortal coil, or bite the bullet and open-up new avenues of debate.
In this work we rewrote special relativity for one specific purpose, to advance
Anthology forward one page back one page
|
|
| |
|
» 
