Saturday, 27 March 2010

Electromagnetic radiation, our universal penetration.

I have tried in many ways to prove to the doubters of my theory on how light travels through space, and that we cannot go back in time when we study distant galaxies or dying stars we observe in the night sky either by unaided sight or by telescopes like Hubble or telescopes operated by electromagnetic radiation.

Some of us seem to underestimate the power of our own eyes, and do not realise that it only takes a millisecond for our eyes to focus on what is in front of them, and that we can see as far as the stars without help from telescopes or binoculars.

When we use aids like these mentioned they magnify the object we are homing in on, except for the ones that use radio waves, which bounce signals off of the object they focus on.

When Hubble was pointed at black open spaces out in the universe visions appeared, which according to my theory was Hubble reaching out to these lights, or in other words "magnifying" these lights, not so much the light reaching Hubble.
The light Hubble reaches out to are varied with constellations forming, and stars dying, and against all other theorist I believe that instead of going back in time when looking out as far as these visions we are still looking at what is out there now.
What happened out there after the Big Bang is history, and history cannot be retrieved through the more abundant lights we are observing, as we reach farther and farther out into space with our newer inventions.

I have pointed out these theories before, I hear you say, but think on when reading the next part.

Mass cannot travel at the speed of light, the light is produced by heat coming from different forms of mass,(forming galaxies, constellations or dying stars e.g.) and it is only the light that travels through space acting as all light does by spreading and weakening as it journeys out from its source.

Most of this light will carry heat and energy with it on part of its journey, which might be part of the makeup of dark matter as the light fades leaving behind its energy, but that is another story.

If, as scientist believe, that the light we can see light years away is ONLY light reaching us from some occurrence that happened just after the Big Bang, and that by reaching it we can go back in time, then how can we bounce radar signals off of it?

They are contradicting themselves by saying that the image they are seeing will have taken a different shape or form over the millions of years the light has taken to reach us, and that the images Hubble is sending back is only light coming from an event that happened, not that it is happening now, then tell us they are bouncing radar signals off of objects within these images.

You cannot bounce radar signals off of light, you need "mass" or the source of the light to be there to get a signal that way, which tells me at least, that what they are looking at is happening NOW not light years ago.

Laser light (light amplification by stimulated emissions of radiation.) is used to measure the distance between the earth and the moon, but you need the source of the power that sends the laser ray out towards the moon to be active to achieve this.
If the power source was switched off before the ray reached the moon it would go no farther, disappear, and not carry on to bounce back and record a distance.
If you sent a laser beam out into open space, you can see the beam, but as soon as the source of the power projecting that light is switched off the beam disappears, you cannot follow its projection out into space.
Without its power source it does not exist, and the same principle applies to the light sources we are observing the deeper we reach into space.

I came across an example of how scientists contradict themselves in this way which I have copied and printed below.


The upgrade features a new system for focusing radio signals using a system of Gregorian reflectors, a new, more powerful 1 million watt radar transmitter and a 50ft high steel mesh ground screen to reduce ground interference. The facility, operated by Cornell University's National Astronomy and Ionosphere Centre (NAIC) under co-operative agreement with the NSF, was upgraded with funds from the NSF and NASA at a cost of approximately $27 million.

The upgrade, the second since the facility was built in 1963, allows scientists to do in one hour what previously took 10 hours. The sensitivity was improved by a factor of about 20 for studies of the solar system and by a factor of about three or four for studies of distant galaxies. More radio frequencies are now available with increased sensitivity at all frequencies. Astronomers will be able to 'observe' signals farther away, and thus further back in time, than ever before. The telescope's frequency range, and thus its sensitivity, previously 50MHz to 3,000MHz, is now 10,000MHz.

Unchanged in the upgrade is Arecibo's trademark reflector dish. Most radio telescopes use a parabolic antenna that can be steered to any direction. The Arecibo antenna is spherical and remains fixed but the focusing device suspended above the dish can be steered. Thus, signals can be captured from a greater slice of the sky. A radio/radar telescope captures and transmits radiation at radio wavelengths, unlike optical telescopes, which capture light waves. So clouds, haze and even daylight do not interfere with radio astronomy.

The system suspended above the dish to focus the radio waves collected by the 1,000ft diameter (305m) reflector has been radically changed. Now, a new six-storey, 90t dome houses a new reflector system, a combination of two radio mirrors and sensitive receiver systems. It is suspended 450ft above the giant reflector dish. The mirrors focus radio waves coming from distant objects in space or radar signals that are sent out into space and bounce back from the surfaces of the planets and other bodies in the solar system.

Read that and tell me how you can bounce radio waves off of light projecting from something that is supposed to have died light years ago, or fix radio waves on light reaching us now from a constellation that formed light years ago. I repeat,(Astronomers will be able to "observe" signals farther away, and thus farther back in time than ever before.) If it is farther back in time how can we bounce signals off it NOW?
The source of the light HAS to be there still or the radio signal would carry on past it if it hasn't enough "mass" to stop it.

It does pass through the light projected by the source until it reaches the "mass" then it bounces back to the receiver, the light from the source becoming stronger and narrowing nearest the source, acting as all light does, stronger at the source and spreading and weakening as it travels outward.

It is the same thing when the scientists point their radio receivers towards a planet that they are studying and expect to pick up signals coming from that planet, as in the diagram above on electromagnetic radiation. If the planet is not there, as they would lead us to believe, why point the receivers towards it, why not just point it to an empty space in the sky and expect signals from planets that might have filled that space?
Sound travels slower than light, that we know, so any part of the sky could pick up signals from dead planets, but the fact that scientists point their receivers towards a visual sight that is still transmitting heat and light should tell them that the planet is still operational even though it would take us mere mortals light years to reach them. The latest finding of a star similar to ours is 127 light years away from us, but because it takes us that time to reach it does not mean it was created then and the light from it is only reaching us now. It is us that has just discovered it with the improving technology and ever intrusive equipment we are developing, and we are seeing that star as it is in its own part of the universe.
The star could well have been created at the time of the BIG BANG, but it certainly has not died, nor has any other star we can see with or without modern technology, they will merely have developed through the years under the same principles our solar system has.

I am not debating that light travels, nor am I debating the speed of light, only that what we are observing out there is happening NOW not light years ago.
Not only is the light traveling to us, but we are reaching out to that "light source" nullifying any time lapse, and nullifying the notion that we can go back in time.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


  1. Great research,keep up the good work

  2. Thanks prophet666 I'll do my best as always.
    You have a great standard yourself.

  3. oh my goodness!

    i didn't know you were a genius!!!!

    aha! :D :D

    Donald S, hop on over to my place! You'll like what you'll see! :)

  4. Thank you, Donald S, for being proud of me and my book :) :)

    You have really made me smile :) :)

  5. It's the 20th anniversary of NASA's launching of the Hubble Telescope and I remembered your blog. Like the technology, your witty theories deserve to be part of history. Congratulations for a job well-done on this blog. Never commented much here, but I must say you always amaze me with your ideas on this field of science.

  6. I have to agree with you because I have felt the same for many years. what we see is what is happening. Loved this post.

  7. Thanks sash.

    Its quite simple skdd, and sash, if an image like the latest one from Hubble, of stars being formed 7500 light years away can be captured it means that we are reaching out to that image. The light it creates will have projected, spread and mingled with other lights in space, maybe reaching as far as earth as it weakened, but the image itself, or the concentrated light at its source must still be there and cannot have reached us if it is still 7500 light years away.
    In the time it would take US to reach it, if it were possible, would take that 7500 light years, and by that time the stars will have formed, but we cannot say we are going back in time when we catch sight of these amazing visions.
    These forming stars Hubble has captured on camera are forming "NOW" The concentrated light at the source is 7500 light years away, NOT just suddenly appearing after forming 7500 light years ago.

  8. Hi! Donald, you made my head
    Just this week end I was watching National Geographic channel. The program was about the creation of the Universe with notorious physicists and scientists. Well you have made a serious dent to part of their theories. This is so beyond me ... luckily there are people like you...I also can see how passionate you are on the subject and how much pleasure it brings you. I ll see you again soon.

  9. Thanks for leaving a positive comment Sibel, I look forward to future contact.

  10. Great Post. This is good information.

  11. Thanks for your appreciation Dr James, its great to know someone of your beliefs approves of my ideas.

  12. very nice blog,good article

    hi from mas raden

  13. Thanks for your approval mas-raden.

  14. hi Mr. Donald,, nice to be here, it has great content..

  15. Thanks for taking the time to comment admin, its nice to know my work is appreciated.

  16. You are highly intelligent, just wanted to congratulate on your posts, they are really educating in many ways. You write things and explain them in a quick and great way. Thanks!

  17. Thank you for taking the time to read my blog and leave such a lovely comment Nicola, it is much appreciated.

  18. Very nice post. It was very enjoyable to read. Of course, time travel is something taken out of an 80's movie. Keep up the good work! Cheers!

  19. I agree about time travel being movie material only, but some of our prominent scientists and other such like people who theorise on the universe seem to think it possible. I have just watched a TV program about time from Stephen Hawking, who seems to have lost the plot somewhat so I have decided to write a piece in here on my thoughts. Hope you enjoy it. Thanks for taking the time to comment.