Einstein made many observations about our solar system.

Image via Wikipedia

I was going to leave unfeatheredangels as a finished work, but as I feel this post is important, I have decided to add it on here at the end, with the possibility of other editions in the future.

Having read the book "The Bible Code" thanks to my good friend Claire from York, my conclusions are somewhat as controversial as The bible code itself.

Too much time is spent discussing the same subjects,and to use a nuclear holocaust as a prediction as to how the world will end in reference to Armageddon in Revelation, is all too predictable for a book written in the nineteen nineties.

There must be enough similarities between the Hebrew version of the Bible, and the English version of the bible to show some of the so called coded predictions in each of the versions, as there cannot be too many words that do not transfer, otherwise the task would never have been achieved in the first place.
Although it might not show up in the same context, there would be a way to compare the code in the given texts to show where the words arise from. Why has this not been done, and only the Hebrew version used as an example, especially when very few folk speak or understand the Hebrew language now.

If I, or someone else wrote this book now, only a decade later, I, or they, could construe the letters in the bible to tell of incidents that have already occurred, such as the "twin towers catastrophe," as the way the letters in the Hebrew version, has no real pattern, with the words being formed from letters at random. There are a few examples that are similar, but not enough to be convincing.

The thing that hit me most was the fact that the writer leaves an escape route in case the predictions he made for the years after the books first publication did not come to fruition.
What I mean by an escape route is, he makes a prediction, shows you the code, then gives us a reason why it might be wrong.
If he was so confident that the code really was in the bible there would be no need for any doubts or excuses.

That is just my opinion, but it brings me to the point I wanted to make in the first place.
Quantum Physics, although using certain scientific calculations, also leaves room for error, or as I have called it an escape route, to save face should their theories be proved wrong in the future.

Stephen Hawking's "Brief history of time" is a theory, and just because it is logical, does not make it right, it has still to be proved right, and will remain a theory until proved otherwise.

Although Einstein made many observations about our solar system, he died leaving theories that have still to be proven today, but some of our scientist take them as fact and make important calculations using them, then IF Einstein is proved to be wrong someday their conclusions from these calculations will be wrong also. In fact some of his theories have already been proved wrong, and the scientist have had to go back to the drawing board for new answers.
"The distinction between past present and future is only an illusion" is one of Einstein's theories, also the one that made him famous, is obvious by its name "THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY"
theory being the operative word.

How many calculations have been made from "The theory of relativity" and it has still to be proved to be correct?
If it ever comes to light (nice pun) that this theory on the speed of light is wrong, which I am not suggesting IS wrong, then all the calculations will be wrong.
What I am suggesting though, is the assumption that as light travels through space the images we see from our telescopes on earth, means that the source of the light we are looking at happened so many light years ago.

We are misusing Einstein's theory, omitting the fact that you need the source of the light to still be active in its visual form, if it is being sighted as such.

Light does travel, and light, and the energy emitted from other galaxies reaches earth, and as it travels it widens and disperses throughout the parts of the universe it travels through, introducing the energy back into the universe.
The image of the source of the light, or the object itself, does not travel through the universe, only it's light and energy, WE are reaching out to that image, therefore the source is still active.

If you take away the source of the light then you just have the light, and energy from that source travelling through space without form, and no visual sighting of the now defunct planet or galaxy.

The idea that what Hubble is seeing as it reaches farther out in space, is planets and galaxies that were formed at the beginning of the universe just after the "big bang" and that the light reflected in Hubble's mirror are events that took place then, is a wrong assumption, simply because as I said, "you need the source to be still active to be able to see the image"

Proof of this is the fact that Hubble is getting closer images of these forming galaxies, and dieing stars and the image remains the same, no matter how close a picture it takes.
If my theory was wrong, it would mean that when Hubble 's closer images came through there would be changes to that image even though it is only magnified.
What I am trying to relate is, the closer Hubble gets, the less light years there are between images, therefore the image should change, but it does not, because the source of light is still there, what Hubble is seeing now, is happening now, and until that realization hits the scientists who hope to view events from the big bang, then they will make wrong assumptions, and calculations.
I have touched on this subject before, and my theory is, "you need the source of the light to be active in solid form to project the images we are now recieving from hubble, therefore these Galaxies are forming now, and the dieing stars are still in the process of dieing"
If I am wrong, and we could span all those light years, at what point would we go through the image of a dieing star and reach the void, or the image of the forming Galaxy to reach it fully formed and in working order, and why would the light energy from a dead star reflect as we see it and not disperse as light energy throughout space, as light does?

It only takes one factual discovery to blow a theory right out of the water, and it wouldn't be the first time it happened in science.

Which brings me to my next post "TIME" and the way we measure it, and its relevance to this post, but as I say "that is for next week."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cambridge Professor Stephen Hawking awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom (telegraph.co.uk)
• Radio-telescope measurements advance frontier physics (scienceblog.com)
• What would Einstein's Intranet look like? (cloudave.com)