Light years away from the truth.

Image via Wikipedia

I am still trying to prove my theory that the distant stars and constellations we see in space, or the events the Hubble telescope is capturing are happening now, and not light years ago as most scientist would have us believe, and budding scientist latch on to without thinking for themselves.

It is true that our SUN is 8.5 light minutes from EARTH, and it stands to reason that it takes 8.5 light minutes for light to reach us from there, but that does not mean that when the SUN disappears below the horizon, it happened 8.5 light minutes ago, and we are only witnessing it after the actual event.

We can look at the SUN directly with our naked eyes, through the light it is omitting, and it is the rays of the SUN that are moving towards us, carrying heat with it. We look directly through the light with telescopes, and magnify the surface of the sun. If the light was travelling the way the scientists would have us believe, we would not need telescopes to magnify it, the light would reach us as a mass, and not as the dispersed light that reaches us.

If you look at a child's drawing of our SUN you will see squiggly lines coming from a yellow ball, it's these lines depicted by a child that makes my explanation more simple to explain. These squiggly lines are the rays, light rays, the light that travels through space, the light rays we are able to look through, and see the SUN as we look at it, not 8.5 light minutes later. We are looking straight at the source of the light, the actual object that produces the light through massive volcanic action bursting through it's surface.

If we observe a sunsetting among clouds, we see the rays of the sun beaming through the breaks in the cloud formation, and it is these rays that are leaving the sun, moving outward, while expanding into space, past Mercury, past Venus, past Earth, out into the vastness of space expanding and dispersing as it journeys on, losing heat and density the further it goes, until it is just a glow, light years from where it originated, and as long as the source is still active, this will continue.

If the source suddenly ceases, the last rays of light to leave it will continue out into space, but if anyone who had observe that source before it became inactive, was watching the event, they would see the source disappear, and if far enough away would still see the last rays of light, and still be able to reach out and touch the glow that had travelled to their world in that form.

Scientist think that the dying stars, or forming constellations we have observed millions of light years away from us have already died or formed, because of the distance they are away from us, given the light years it takes these images to reach us, but if that was the case it would mean that the image of that light source stopped light years away from earth, never reaching any further and never expanding as light does.

Take a cinema for instance, as the light is projected from the camera lens, onto the screen it enlarges, making the picture clear enough to view, but if you keep taking the screen further away, the picture widens until it is no longer distinguishable, as the light disperses the further it travels.

It is the same principle with the distant stars, they project their light, and it travels through space reaching our skies, and in the case of our nearest star after our SUN which is PROXIMA CENTAURI, we are able to touch it's projected rays as they travel through our corner of the universe, 4.22 light years after they left it's surface, passing us as a glow in the night sky, reflecting off moons and planets as it carries ever onward.

If this is not the case, and the source of that light has gone, why can we still see the source? It is not the image or mass of the light that travels through space just the rays of light. We can focus on that image or star with our naked eyes, light years away, although it is only a shiny dot in our sky, the Hubble telescope can focus on constellations millions of light years away, and if they were not there, it would only be light it would reflect, not a solid image.
It does not take our naked eyes 4.22 light years to focus on our nearest star, after our sun, or 8.5 minutes to focus on our sun, but we can see them.

It is the same with the radar telescopes we use, they bounce signals off distant planets, light years away then tell us with one breath that they might not be there now, then tell us with another breath that if we could reach them we might discover a planet with life on it.
That is the main reason of space exploration, FINDING LIFE, but what is the point if the planets you are discovering do not exist any more.

The scientist's conclusions in this case, makes a mockery of all their theories, because how can you bounce a radar signal off an object that is not there, and how can you see a light source that disappeared light years ago?
What is the point of observing something that does not exist in the only form we can see it, because if we could reach it to find evidence of the BIG BANG, according to their theories the formation would have disappeared or changed so dramatically that we would never be able to prove anything.
The planets they find orbiting around stars, are found by a shadow crossing a light source, if neither is there how can it be possible to find them in this way?
The answer is simple, YOU CANNOT.

They are still there, as are the stars, constellations, dying or otherwise that we or Hubble sees sending light towards our corner of the universe, and as long as we can observe them they are there.

Closer to home, our SUN sends rays of light and heat, towards us which takes 8.5 light minutes to reach us, so pity help us if the Sun itself or it's image, decides to travel at that speed towards us, which when you boil down the scientist's theory, is what happens in regards to light travel.
The universe as we know it will cease to exist a lot quicker than we think, and it will matter not who was right.

I rest my case once again, for now at least.

Someday the right person will take heed of what I am saying, and agree with me, but until they do, our chance of understanding the universe will be restricted.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New planets found around sun-like stars (cbc.ca)
• Super-Earth: Newly Discovered Planet May Have Water (time.com)
• Suspected Asteroid Collision Leaves Trailing Debris (spacefellowship.com)