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

Sunday, 13 February 2011

Kepler is proving my point.

Planetary News: Kepler (2011)

Kepler Discoveries Suggest a Galaxy Rich in Life

By Amir Alexander
February 3, 2011
Credit: NASA /

The search for distant Earths in the depths of space took a giant leap forward with the discovery of 5 Earth-size planet candidates orbiting in the habitable zone – the region around a star where liquid water is stable. If follow up observations confirm the discovery, the five planets would be among the first ever detected which could have water on their surface, and possibly – life.

The 54 habitable-zone planets detected by Kepler all orbit stars that are substantially smaller than the Sun. As a result, the habitable zones are closer to the stars, and the planets’ orbital period consequently shorter. The detection of Earth-like planets orbiting in the habitable zone of Sun-like stars will take a few more years, simply because Kepler will need to observe at least 3 transits, which for a planet with an Earth-like orbit will take around 3 years.

Even so, the implications of the spacecraft’s discoveries are already transforming our view of the universe and of ourselves within it. “Kepler can only see 1/400 of the sky” noted Borucki. “[It] can only find a small fraction of the planets around the stars it looks at,” because most orbiting planet do not transit, and are therefore invisible to the probe. “If you account for those two factors our results indicate that there must be millions of planets orbiting the stars that surround our suns.” And if planets are plentiful in the Milky Way, then life could be as well. “Kepler, said Borucki,” is the first step towards the detection of life in our galaxy.”


Kepler in the way it is discovering new planets is also helping to prove the point I have been making which is, "What we see happening in space is happening now, not light years ago as our cosmetologist and scientist would have us believe."

Kepler was launched in march 2009 and trails the earth as it orbits the sun at a distance of around 18 million miles.

It fixes its gaze permanently on one patch of sky looking for galaxies and planets that we cannot see from earth.

As you will note from the above passages copied from The Planetary News, Kepler has been successful in discovering a galaxy that may have life among the planets located within it and the scientists rightly are excited about this find as it could hold the answer we all have been wondering about. "Is there life out there?"

The point I am trying to make is that it took from 2009 until this year for Kepler's search to unveil the exciting galaxy that shone through the dark patch of sky it had been focusing on.

Through the ages, since mankind has been observing the skies, none of the galaxies we are now discovering by probing deeper into space has ever projected its image close enough for us to detect them from earth. You would think if the light was projected the way scientist say, some of these images would have reached us without us have to probe deeper into space for them considering the speed light travels at.

If as the scientists believe, what we see as we look at distant galaxies through telescopes from earth, or even by the assistance of The Hubble Telescope that the light reaching us in the image it portrays is an event that happened millions of light years ago, then the image of this new galaxy that Kepler has discovered should reach us soon and we should be able to view it from earth by the means available to us as I mentioned.

If this were so there would be no need to send observation crafts out into space as the image would reach us eventually according to the speed light travels.

We all know how vast the universe is, and as it stands there are galaxies and planets that will never be seen from earth no matter how long you wait for a light to shine through.

We have to reach out to these new galaxies, travel across space to get closer to them before we will be able to see their image, and if and when we do, what we will find is a planet with whatever activity that is taking place, happening at the time we observe it, not as it was billions of years before we discovered it.

When Christopher Columbus discovered America he was on a different time zone from the one he left in Europe, but what he observed on the shore from his ship was happening at that time and not sometime in the past.

We can travel to America in hours now in comparison to the months it took Columbus, and arrive in a different time zone, but the result is still the same. "what we will observe will be happening at that exact time"

It would be no different if we could travel through space and reach the galaxy Kepler discovered, we would be at a different part of the universe and in a different time zone but we would be observing what was happening on these planets at our time of arrival not some time in the past.

The light will be traveling from that galaxy and it might reach earth, but the image of the galaxy or the planets in it will not be seen from earth, only the fading rays as they pass like time ever onward until they are no more.