The empirical case against UFOs rests on the belief that the stars are so far apart that they are virtually unreachable. Because of our largely religious assumptions, we conclude that the closest star is so far away that we would never be able to journey there and therefore, with the universe ruled by our religions assumptions, if there is anyone living on planets orbiting other stars, it would be impossible for them to get here also.
The religious assumption, of course, is the same assumption that caused us to conclude that the Earth was the center of the universe. When we found that the Earth orbited the sun, and therefore couldn't be the center, we couldn't give up our belief that we were somehow unique in the eyes of a supreme being. If we weren't the center of the universe, then the universe had to be so far removed that there would be no reason to consider that we weren't unique.
It's the sort of fuzzy motivation that drives empirical science to claim that it can measure that which cannot be measured. In Where Science Went Wrong, I detail how the notion that we could measure the distance to the nearest stars came about and I put that historical tidbit in the context of the entire history of empirical science is Let's Talk Flying Saucers, which argues that the entire empirical tradition is designed to exclude the possibility of extraterrestrial life visiting the Earth because the existence of such a presence serves to negate all of the empirical nonsense created by empirical science to answer questions with bogus, nonunderstandable answers in order to keep the game alive, keep the funding coming, keep empirical ignorance in Champagne and caviar.
The simple fact is, empirical science never has and never will be capable of measuring the distance to the nearest star simply because the many tolerances involved in the measurements exceed the potential accuracy of the measurement. Empirical science, faced with this reality in the 20th Century, has piggybacked the measurement to the closest stars to a system of measurement first by brightness, and then by wavelength shift in order to hide the fact that it cannot measure the distance to any star. The system of measuring by degrees of brightness followed the typical empirical con game of waving the left hand while distracting the viewer from the fact that there was no right hand. By creating a difficult grading system to learn to compute the distance to the distant stars, empirical science created the basic assumption that it had actually measured the distance to the nearest stars. No one ever questioned the basic measurement upon which the brightness system rested because they were too busy computing distance by brightness.
When relative brightness failed to explain discrepancies, empirical science created wavelength shift to measure distance claiming first, that it was not based on its original faulty distance measurements to the nearest stars, and then claiming that it stood alone as an absolute guide to measuring distance. As I demonstrate in Light, light is not composed of wavelengths, but rather of frequencies, and those frequencies are altered by the matter through which they pass. Applying this reality to light passing through a spectrum illustrates that empirical science, as it does with so many of its conclusions, reversed reality, that it reversed red and blue in the spectrum, with red actually being the shorter wavelength and blue the longest. This reality has more than been born out by technological innovations manipulating light frequencies. The fact that empirical science uses a red shift to measure distance to the stars when the red shift, to the extent that it exists as an orderly system of measurement, would actually be a blue shift, demonstrates the humor objective observers of empirical misfires can enjoy.
But we don't need to argue with people who, like fortune tellers bent over crystal balls claiming to see the future, use instruments kept out of our reach to measure what can't be measured. All we have to do to disprove the empirical delusionists is measure what we can measure, light. Pick up any physics textbook and turn to the subject of light and you'll be treated with a bunch of gobbledygook . You won't find anything about the most basic property of light, the fact that it diminishes inversely with the square of the distance over which it travels.
The reason this is a lost fact in the scientific textbooks is that it disproves the empirical claim that it can see light from the beginning of time at the end of the universe. It gives lie to the empirical fantasy that when we see light from a star, that light left the star billions of years ago, that we are seeing into the past.
The simple fact is, light diminishes with distance, and it does so at an alarming rate, inversely with the square of that distance. If we can see light from a star, or the combined light from a galaxy, then the source of that light is pretty darn close to us. When Voyager sent back pictures of our sun from the orbit of Neptune, the sun was barely discernible from the background stars.
Distance does matter when it comes to light, and, just as the lights of a plane blink out of existence with distance, so does the light of stars. If we can see a star, we can probably get there within a reasonable period of time. Just because empirical science makes up a bunch of stuff that claims something is impossible doesn't mean that made-up stuff limits the life that forms on other planets from reaching out fearlessly into space and visiting us.
Of course, as a last refuge, empirical science claims that the chances of there being any other life in space are all but impossible. To accomplish the imposition of this impossibility on a universe filled with more sun-like stars than even empirical science could lay claim to quantifying, it makes up empirical conclusions about the creation of life that put it in the category of a biblical miracle, no, come to think of it, that puts it even beyond being a biblical miracle, placing it into the hands of a law of chance that exceeds a probability of infinity.
Empirical science does this the same way it measures the distance to the stars. It makes up a bunch of stuff that tells us nothing about anything, and then claims that its made-up stuff tells us everything there is to know. When it comes to the creation of life and the mechanics of evolution, empirical science has no explanation. In The Cooling Continuum, I address both issues and find that life is not the exception in the universe, it is the rule because its formation and evolution follow easily explainable courses that result from physically measurable reality.
If life is the rule rather than the exception, then we would expect the stars we see to have planets just as our star does, and that one or more of those planets will contain life just as our planet does. That leaves the question about timing, at what stage of development could we expect to find the life on other planets. Empirical science, having no explanation for the formation of galaxies, concludes that they were the result of the ridiculous Big Bang explosion that gave birth to the universe. In Atoms, Stars and Minds, I detail how galaxies are formed. Once we know how galaxies are formed, we can time the formation of planets, and the life that evolves on those planets, and we can conclude that it occurs simultaneously throughout the galaxy. This isn't the place to go into why we are lagging behind, why we have chosen religious conclusions like mass/gravity to limit our technology, but timing tells us that thousands and thousands of civilizations have developed throughout the galaxy to the point where interstellar travel is the norm rather than the exception. We, with our primitive notions and beliefs are the exception, and it is not unusual that we are probably one of the primary stops on a sociological tour of the galaxy. We are probably visited by dozens of different civilizations at any particular time and while all of those civilizations might have differences in customs and mores, they all have one thing in common: Either by accident or as a result of the consistent development of viable theories, they have accounted for the current causes of force and motion and have developed the technology needed to exploit the mechanical nature of the forces that produce the motions of our existence.
In short, they have learned how to manipulate gravity, the mechanism embedded in expanding electromagnetic fields, so that they can either neutralize it, or use it as a means of acceleration, whichever is appropriate to their task at hand.
The mechanism embedded in expanding electromagnetic fields that regulates the expansion of that field and drives the units that make up the nuclei of atoms back toward the source of the field is composed of the interaction between the expanding electromagnetic emission field and the inductances that field generates. As the expanding field, and its inductances are composed of electrons, the mechanism can be manipulated by electrical means. The primary purpose for manipulating the mechanism is to eliminate it so that we can move within the expanding electromagnetic field without having the field attempt to move our atoms back toward the source of the field.
To accomplish this, we have to keep the expanding electromagnetic flows from recombining. We have to let the field overexpand. If the expanding flows do not recombine, we have eliminated the mechanism that their expansion, and in the process eliminated the force that draws us back to the source of the emissions. As electrons form the inductive flows that cause the emissions to recombine, all we have to do is develop technology that eliminates the electrons available to produce the inductive flows. If we eliminate the electrons available to produce the inductive flows that recombine the expanding flows, then we eliminate the mechanism that causes atoms to move back towards the source of emissions.
Electromagnetic emissions obtain the electrons it uses to form its inductive flows from the surrounding environment. The book Light explores this environment to some extent, but here we can say generally that the electrons are available either from the atoms that make up the environment, the atoms of air, or from the ambient field, the field of electrons that exists in all environments ready to chase places where there is a deficit of electrons in which they can take up positions. We can't eliminate these electrons. Therefore, we have to put them to some other use.
One way to do this is to collect them electrically, and this is what the UFOs do. One possible way would be to build the craft as a generator. A product of an electric motor is heat, the electrons it is releasing into the ambient field. A generator, however, removes electrons from the ambient field and directs them on a path. Because the UFO might not need the electrons, it could discharge them by means of a high frequency light or even higher frequency emissions. If the light were directed beneath the UFO, it would have the additional benefit of employing electrons that would otherwise be used to recombine the expanding flows the UFO was designed to neutralize.
Thus, the generator model would simply sweep the electrons out from around the craft, electrons that would otherwise be employed in recombining the expanding electromagnetic flows and forcing the craft back toward the source of the flows, and dissipating those electrons away from the craft. In doing so, the craft would eliminate the recombining mechanisms and the force that those recombining mechanisms produce. Another, and perhaps more common, process would be to store the electrons for later use in high capacity capacitors. While I think that the saucer-like UFOs that we see are not interstellar craft, but are designed to maneuver in the atmosphere, we might see variations of both the dissipation and storage model. However, the giant UFOs that seem to hover and drift for long periods of time probably are the interstellar craft, and are probably storing electrons for the journey between the stars where ambient electrons are few and far between.
The design of the saucer-like craft bears out this type of craft's purpose for atmospheric exploration. As long as the craft, through the control of the recombining mechanisms that surround it, can make its weight equal to the weight of the air around it, it can move with that air. However, the air and the ground beneath the saucer-like craft, as well as the craft, are moving at a specific speed, anywhere from one thousand miles an hour at the equator, toward nothing at the poles. If the ground, the air and the saucer are all moving at eight hundred miles an hour, and the saucer wants to eliminate the effect of gravity totally, it can, simply by eliminating its weight, eliminate its position, slipping through the atmosphere as a result of its saucer-like design, and disappear to any observers still caught up at moving eight hundred miles an hour.
There's a lot to be said for how these craft move once they are free of the attractions of expanding electromagnetic fields, but it's probably more important to focus here on how they can free themselves from those fields, rather than the many ways they can move once they have the freedom of movement within and from those fields.
Addendum: Since writing that when Voyager sent back pictures of our sun from the orbit of Neptune, the sun was barely discernible from the background stars, several readers have tried, without success, to find the picture on the net. I saw it in a newspaper in the 80s. One reader has finally come up with what is claimed to be a picture of the sun from Voyager I taken outside the orbit of Pluto. It's at http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00450. Compare it sizewise with the 1991 solar eclipse pictured at http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/eclips91.htm and draw your own conclusions. I don't understand why pictures of the sun from space aren't all over the place, but then we don't get normal pictures of space from any source, just close-ups and images from distant stars.
Peter Bros is the author of the 9 volume Copernican Series and is President of The Far Museum of Dallas, an actual history museum, which will house its collection of 50,000 rare Eastern Mediterranean manuscripts and artifacts together with actual history displays and tours in a full-sized replica of the Egyptian Temple at Dendera to be built in the Dallas Ft. Worth area. Email:peterbros@therealskeptic.com