The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Monday, June 02, 2008

String Theory, The Singularity, and UFOs

3future.jpg

The running-in-circles that ufologists have been guilty of, in the past and even more so now [2008], has to stop.

Constant reversion to Roswell [Kevin Randle, Stanton Friedman, et al.] and other past UFO or flying saucer events has been unproductive, to say the least.

3buddies.jpg

Physicists provide a working template for how UFOs should be studied or conjectured about.

After Newton and Einstein, when classical physics were tempered by quantum physics [quantum mechanics and quantum theory], physicists have provided hypotheses about the basic building blocks of the Universe – string theory among them – and what the Universe is basically made up of or sprung from -- the Singularity.

Physicists haven’t been any more successful at resolving the questions in their related fields of study than ufologists, but ufologists haven’t provided new, paradigm-shifting hypotheses about what UFOs are.

3string.jpg

Yes, there have been some interesting conjectures, such as that from Mac Tonnies (who posits a concomitant Earth race that is subliminal), but each hypothetical rumination actually end up being rehashed ideas that have popped up often, before, by quacks and legitimate UFO researchers, such as Jacques Vallee.

The “new” hypotheses” are wrapped in fresh language, but underneath lies the same tired, old speculations that arrived in 1947 and fleshed out in the 50s and 60s.

Meanwhile, physicists have presented new, original, creative ideas about the Universe and the building blocks thereof.

Their methodologies (math, calculus, et cetera) remain the same as that in Newton’s day pretty much. But the proffered theories are new whereas there are no new theories for what UFOs are.

The UFO phenomena are rooted, by ufologists, in prosaic and/or mundane subjective explanations.

3roswell.jpg

As we keep reiterating, ufologists -- even the smart ones (and there are a few) – do not or cannot create a new paradigm from which UFOs can be researched or studied in their essence.

The accretions within or rather upon the flying saucer/UFO morphology just can’t be set aside by ufologists or the UFO community.

The reasons for this are emotional, psychological if you will, and almost ingrained it seems in the minds of those who are devotees of the UFO mystery.

It took courage for the quantum physicists to break with their colleagues who were immersed (and are immersed) in classical physical theory.

3fermi.jpg

It will take courage by some ufologists – we need a new sobriquet for UFO study – to break with the past and those ufologists who just can’t let go of it.

It will take a new breed of ufologists [Heiser, Hudson, et al.] to bring about a truly fresh, invigorated hypothesis, or hypotheses, for the UFO phenomena.

Those tethered to the old explanations, and even the old UFO episodes, have provided nothing and must be set aside, ignored if any progress in solving the UFO enigma is to be had.

This is obvious, just as it was obvious to some physicists that Newton and Einstein had to be set aside in order to get at the real reality that those men sought but couldn’t quite get a handle on.

The epithet “ufology” has to be dumped and even the working name for the aerial phenomena, UFOs.

We’ve written this before, many times, and we understand that the UFO old-guard [Hall, Clark, Connors] and middle-guard [Kimball, Redfern, Bishop, Tonnies (maybe)] are not about to be shoved aside by what they see as newbies to the fray.

3bishop.jpg

But that was also the case with the new physicists – Kaku, Smolen, et al.

They have broken with the physics past, the dogs barked, but the new physics caravan has moved on.

And so it should be thus with ufology – or whatever its new mantle should be.

3 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home