Friday, 17 May 2013

Now on ebooks.

You can now get the book "Before Genesis to Revelation and Beyond" on EBOOKS. If you wish to purchase it you will find it with various distributers on the search stations.
It is this blog in book form with many extra chapters that will enthral you.

Published blog.

Karen Campbell, crime fiction author, giving a...Image via WikipediaThis blog is now out in book form mistakes and all, under the title of "Before Genesis to Revelation and Beyond" and can be purchased online through Authorhouse, Amazon and Waterstones, or order it at any good bookshops under the category of PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION/ INSPIRATIONAL/ SPIRITUALITY.
It makes much better reading in book form.

Sunday, 23 December 2012

Old post on a topical subject.

2012 will not be the end of the world.

Auroras on Jupiter, Saturn, and IoImage by Image Editor via Flickr
This is a piece I wrote in "thephilosopherschair" some time ago, and I thought it might interest my new readers, as the topic comes up often among followers of such themes, so here are my thoughts on the subject.

By Donald Swarbrick.


I would like to start by reminding you, that these are my theories, and would like you to consider them before being sent into a panic by the other theorists who think that the world will end on 21 or 23 of December 2012 by taking their assumptions from one of the Mayan calendars.

Lets look at a couple of the causes that are supposedly going to end the world or put it into such an upheaval that it will make our very existence dubious. Things that have been thrown into the mix are "solar bursts" which the world experiences all the time (the Aurora borealis and the aurora australis being an example of this) which the earth defends its self against by deflecting the rays around the surface keeping them safely above our atmosphere, and regardless of their strength the earth's gravity will continue to deflect them as they are unlikely to become strong enough to counteract our gravitational field, as the bursts are only clouds of charged particles, and not an actual furnace charging towards the earth. We have to remember that there are planets nearer to the sun that get the same sun bursts as we do, and come to no harm although they get a stronger surge than us, and the bursts continue to the outer planets too, with no damaging results.

The earth has encountered strong solar bursts before and survived, the only difference this time is the fact that we have satellites up in the area that the bursts are being deflected through, and given the uses we have for these satellites it will cause a lot of disruption to the way of life we have become accustomed to, but once they are past we will be able to put things back the way they were although it may take some time. So if that is a portrayal of doomsday to you, then just be patient as everything will return to normal, or as they say "normal service will be resumed as soon as possible."

Geomagnetic reversal, or polar shift is another expectation by some in the dreaded 2012 but as it takes 5,000 years for this to complete once the cycle has begun, and if we only had till 21 or 23 of December 2012 for its completion then we would be much nearer to the end of the cycle with more distinct signs, other than global warming, or volcanic and geological movement to convince us. Earth has gone through many changes and the signs that the doom merchants are using to convince us that earth's end is near are only natural occurrences that the world has to endure through it's lifespan, but will not dictate its demise.

The Mayans were very knowledgeable people both in astronomy and mathematics 2,000 years BC so you have to ask, where that knowledge came from, and why are the few descendants that are left, not as clever, or, why did they not carry on from where their ancestors left off giving us more to work on other than the records they left behind?

I wrote a piece in "unfeatheredangels" on the subject of some of these intelligent races, all from a similar time zone and area where each of their cultures were only slightly different although they were not connected to each other, and made the suggestion that they could have gained their knowledge of the stars by traveling here from a planet that had become endangered, and were brought here by the same spacecraft described in "The Old Testament" by Ezekiel. This may sound outrageous to you but when you consider the knowledge they had then, compared to the knowledge the supposed learned people of today have, and why that knowledge was not passed down and elaborated on by their following generations, it becomes a more logical theory.

When you study their rituals and beliefs, which don't always come from myths or legends, you can, if you study the beliefs,and look at them with an open mind, begin to see where my theories take some logic. Take one, for instance, the "Zapotee" (another race from around the same time zone and area as the Mayans) who think they come from an elite race among the clouds, so if they WERE brought here from another planet, that is where their belief would have originated, and not from myths or legend as we have been led to believe. It has been thought that most of these races I am speaking about suddenly appeared on earth,and their ancestry has been nigh impossible to trace, so that is all the more reason not to discount my theory.

The Mayans had two calendars, one called Mesoamerican long calender, the other being the Venus cycle, and they took calculations from the stars for many different reasons that I am not going into now ( look up the Mayans on the Internet for all the facts you need) so why has the public been frightened by one of them just because it happens to last for 5,125 years and expires in December 2012. They only used it for a certain purpose and whatever purpose that was, was not needed after 2012, not because the world was going to end but because the astronomical reason they were using it would have become outdated as the stars alignments altered. They never predicted the end of the world although they were knowledgeable enough to do so, if it was possible at all, and would have made it more clear than a date on some calendar they were going to discard in 2012 had they survived in the strength and knowledge of their origin, and not have mysteriously faded into oblivion, taking their exceptional knowledge with them.

The Mayans, and the other races in and around that time knew more than they should, and one reason that cannot be discounted is the fact that they could have gained their knowledge first hand from the space travellers who brought them here, the same people the bible is referring to. Their calendars could have been brought from their own planet as they do not fit with earth's cycles, and the calculations taken from there, while the long count calendar that all the fuss is about, having nothing whatsoever to do with earth.

If the person who started all the fuss had explained to the gullible people more of the culture and rituals of the Mayans, then there would be more understanding of such an intelligent race, and less ridiculous theories on a prediction they never made or suggested.

Thankfully we have the Internet to fall back on now, so if you want to put your mind at ease on the 2012 subject, then I suggest you go and study the Mayans and make your own mind up instead of listening to other peoples theories, mine included.

Some of you will never be convinced that 2012 is not going to bring disaster to the earth, but I will be under the clock with a red rose in my lapel, to meet any of you who care to turn up on the 25Th of December 2012 to prove I was right. What clock? I will disclose that on the 24Th but remember to buy my Christmas present. A bottle of Bacardi would be fine to bring in the new year of 2013................?
Now then, 13 unlucky for some. I wonder??????
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

Hubble reaches out into space for us.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field, is an image of a ...Image via WikipediaThe findings of the space telescope Hubble only confirms my theory which goes against the belief of most cosmologist who think time travel is possible.
My theory is that,"you cannot go back through time or move forward through time."

Scientist and cosmologists assume that the light from new planets and galaxies Hubble is discovering is only now appearing in our solar system, and if we could reach them we could travel back in time, closer to when the "Big Bang" occurred.

Hubble is only 370 miles or 600Km above the earth's surface, so if the light from these sources was reaching Hubble then the light source would be seen by the naked eye on earth seconds after it reached Hubble, considering the speed light travels.

No matter how fast light travels we on earth will never see these lights with our naked eyes as it is Hubble that is reaching out into space to these light sources.

You have to consider that light comes from a heat source and light only travels as far as the intensity of that heat source allows.
The more intense the farther the travel and the less intense the less travel, its common sense.
Light does not travel on and on forever!

If it ever becomes possible for us to reach the limits of space we would not be traveling through time, we would only be reaching the extremities during universal time. Not going back and not going forward in time.

If, as most of us believe that the universe began with "The Big Bang," and we could reach the planets that have formed nearer to where the explosion took place, we would not be going back nearer to the time of the Big bang, we would only be going to these planets or galaxies and be able to see them as they are, and to observe how they have developed since the explosion took place.

They probably have had more time to develop than the remnants that traveled farther and any life on them could be far more advance than we are.

If you freeze frame any explosion the results of each frame will show what is happening at exactly the same time to the fragments nearest to the blast and to the fragments farthest away.
Looking at the fragments nearest the blast is not taking you nearer to the time the explosion was set off.

The result is the same with the universe only it is on a much larger scale than we can envisage, and the lights deep in space that Hubble is discovering will come no nearer to us but develop in their own part of the universe.
Scientists and cosmologists are still assuming that the light from the farthest galaxy has just reached us when it is the telescopes mankind has developed that are reaching out to them.
Their dream of being able to time travel is blinding them from reality.

Another thing to think about is, what if we could place Hubble 370 miles above one of these distant planets that are part of a galaxy 13 billion light years from us to reach out 13 billion light years beyond that?
What would it discover then?

More planets and galaxies, that is the answer.

From our little speck of dust that we call earth, we will never see the vastness of the universe and assumptions of how it came to be will always be made until, maybe someday, people from a planet that is far in advance of our own might come and explain the truth of it all to us.

Some people on earth think they have already been here, some think they still are, but whoever, if any are right, they will not want to expose themselves to violent peoples such as we have on earth.

Maybe when we can learn to live in peace with our own kind and show we are no threat to them, then the mysteries of the universe will be unfolded to us.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 16 March 2011

We cannot time travel.

A popular Spitzer photo of the Helix Nebula. B...Image via WikipediaThe reason today's cosmetologist and scientist think when they are looking at distant stars like GRB090423 and assume that the dying stages we are observing happened 13 billion years ago is that they have forgotten that "light years" is a measurement of distance, not time.

A light year is around 6 trillion miles so it was decided to use the time it takes light to travel through space to measure distances in space making any calculations easier.

This fact seems to have been lost in today's world, and calculations and incorrect assumptions are being made by thinking we can "time travel" because we measure universal distance by "light years."

The light from the stars are released at source and it does travel through space, but it leaves the star behind and travels as rays.

There are many stars in the universe that cannot be seen from earth no matter how powerful the telescope is as they are too far away from us or in some cases hidden by the clutter around our planet.

When we ventured out past our atmosphere and into space we began to discover more stars and galaxies simply because we could see farther, not because the images of stars and galaxies were finally reaching us.

The more we learn about the universe and the more powerful our methods of reaching for the stars becomes, the farther we see out into space through the miles.
It is our methods that enable us to do this, not the fact that these images or sources of light are reaching us as our scientists and cosmetologist would have us believe.

Take a light bulb e.g., when it is switch on the light leaves the source and spreads around the room but the bulb stays where it is.
We look at the source of light through the beam it sends across the room, and across the distance the light source is from us.
Although the light reaches our faces the source stays where it is and in the same form it was in when the light left it. It does not take the source of the light with it.

It is in the same principle that light reacts in space.

The stars we see in space release their light which then travels a distance that is miles not time, leaves the star in the form it was and by the time it reaches us the form of that star might have changed. If we had been around when the light left the star we would have been able to observe the star in that form, but we can only observe it as it is now.

The fact that it takes various times for light to reach us from different parts of space denotes the distance in miles of that event we are studying, not the amount of years ago it happened, hence the fact that what we are seeing out there now is happening now.

The image of new stars, dying or forming is not suddenly emerging to us by any of us travelling through time, but by our modern methods of covering the miles between us.

We are waiting for Beetlejuice (or Betelgeuse as it is also known) which is 520-1400 light years away from earth to become a supernova, and we are told that GRB090423 is in it's dying throes 13 billion years away from us.
We watch and observe stars dying and galaxies forming light years from us that are much closer than GRB090423, so if they were actual years away from us instead of miles we would be able to go back 9 billion years and see GRB090423 as it was then, move through time and observe stars of interest at various stages of their lives.

If the light from these stars traveled as the scientist would have us believe there would be images of the same star in different place in the universe as all the stars are moving great distances as time goes past in an ever expanding universe.

We would be able to travel in time and see the galaxies that are forming actually formed but we are not looking back through time when we look into space we are looking across the miles.

Instead of waiting for Beetlejuice to become a supernova we could go forward in time to see when it changed.

Beetlejuice is much closer to us than GRB090423 and if it was the case that the image we see of it now happened between 520-1400 light years ago, we could go farther back and see it during its life as a bright star, or even farther back and observe its birth, but light years are only miles, mans conception of distance in space, not actual time.

Time travel and seeing the stars as they were, we cannot, but we can, through modern methods travel through the miles that separates us from the stars and observe them as they are now.

Poor old GRB090423 is dying before our very eyes, and if we are around when Beetlejuice becomes a supernova we will be able to observe it as it happens.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 13 March 2011

Comment from Prof. Brian Cox. "science can be wrong"

Dr Brian Cox #2Image by Dave Pearson via FlickrProfessor Brian Cox stated on TV on the "Something for the weekend" program dated 13-03-2011, that "Science can be wrong," and in the case of how light travels and reacts in space, science has got it very wrong.

When we look directly at a star (i.e. our sun) we are looking at it as it is at that moment not as it was when the rays from it that are hitting us left it.

Scientists wrongly assume that when we look at our sun or distant stars that we are seeing them as they were at the time it takes light to reach us from that particular star, but you have to remember that stars are spherical in shape and any light projected from them is emitted in all directions, dispersing and spreading into space the further it travels.

Light is released from the sphere it does not travel in the shape of the object it leaves, or take the object with it.

If we look face on at a movie projector we see a bright light, not the image it will project on to the screen, and if we sit at the side of the light it projects we see the ray from that source, not the image. It is only when we watch from behind the light source as it hits a screen that we see the image it is projecting.

We need something to catch the light rays and reflect the image back to us.

It is the same principle with stars, and as I stated, stars are spherical, so we are observing them from the front, the side and from behind, therefore if, as scientists assume, that light travels as the image it leaves, how can we see that image without a screen to catch it?

When the projector is switched on you see it flicker into life, then the bright light follows until it is switched off, then it fades and disappears like a dying star and the rays from it cease to show any distinguishable shape or form because you need the source of light to be present for the image to be portrayed properly.

Stars are only visible to us because the heat source that generates the light is still present. We are seeing the star as it is with light radiating from it strongly at its source and the light that was released from it years ago is dispersing into space in all directions.

Another point I would like to bring to your attention is that the dying star grb090423 which is 13 billion years away from us, is dying now not 13 billion years ago as Professor Brian Cox and his associates assume.

During the lifetime of that star the universe has moved, therefore if their theory were true we would be able to see the image of that star in another part of the sky as it formed, then in another point in the sky as it lived, with its death throes we are observing now in the position it is now.

Also if it took us 13 billion years to reach that star, according to their theory it would then be 26 billion years old plus the time it took to form and live, or 13 billion years older than it was when we left our planet, and if it was in its dying stages 13 billion years ago there would be nothing left when we reached the point in the universe that it originated.

We see stars and galaxies in various stages of birth and death light years away from us and each stage is happening out there now or we would not be able to observe them as they are. In some cases there would be nothing to focus on, as in others there would be no solid matter to bounce radar signals off.

They also contradict themselves when they look at stars and see planets circling around them and tell us that it is happening now, make assumptions of what it will be like there, when if the therory they work on were true, what they are observing would have happened light years ago and what is happening at that spot in the universe will be completely different, making their assumptions and the idea of venturing to distant stars irrelevant as we could never be sure of what we would find when we got there.

Professor Brian Cox constantly says "we think" when he is referring to his theories on the universe and that is exactly what we have to go on most of the time, THEORIES.

Theories have all too often been proved wrong when new discoveries are made or when we advance our methods of discovery and until we realize that what we see out there is happening now, our scientists will be coming to the wrong conclusions when calculating the ifs and buts of our beginnings.

While I agree with most of Brian Cox's theories I will have to disagree with him on his assumptions on how light travels from the stars.

Enhanced by Zemanta