We cannot time travel.

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.

Related articles

• NASA's Hubble Rules Out One Alternative to Dark Energy (scienceblog.com)
• Baby stars blasting out jets of matter (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Will Betelgeuse Really Become a Second Sun in 2012? (space.com)

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

Image 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.

Related articles

• Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe by Prof Brian Cox: Science was never more attractive... (booktopia.com.au)

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.

RADIO SIGNAL SENSITIVITY

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.
REFLECTOR DISH AND ANTENNA

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• W. E. Gordon, Creator of Link to Deep Space, Dies at 92 (nytimes.com)
• Cosmic Telephoto Lens Shows Intense, Early Star Formation (usnews.com)
• Milky Way a Cannibal, Ancient Star Confirms (space.com)
• Hubble Telescope Spots Most Distant Galaxies (space.com)

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)

the gravitational pull of Heaven

Image via Wikipedia

There are two possibilities of the outcome of this natural occurrence, one where Heaven will be involved only by its gravitational pull and the other where it will play a bigger roll. In both cases the beginning of the end will start in the same fashion. As each planetary system retracts with the gravitational pull of Heaven, some individual planets will be engulfed by their own suns growing out of all proportion as their gases expand. The once life giving stars in the Universe will retract through fields of untouched gases in the black matter causing them to react with an overpowering force that takes charge of any encountered spheres, engulfing them completely as they entwine into each others orbits. Galaxy’s will become one mass again trapping all the minerals, chemicals and gases they consist of, reverting to similar conditions before the Big Bang although, this time the objects will stay large and not revert to the minute particles that the universe originated from. Scientists have already forecast an event that runs along the same lines, now they know the real phenomenal occurrence that will cause it. As each inhabited planet gets caught up in this reversal, the space rescuers will be on hand, to evacuate all the good people from each individual planet, much the same way as is described in Revelation about the demise of earth. Every person who ever lived across the vast Universe will be accounted for and either taken to Heaven or Hell. The planet Hell on the very edge of the Heavens constellation will be the last planet to get caught up in all this. If the promise of eternal life we have been given is kept, then as the stars, asteroids, comets, planets, and gases congeal, they will form a roof around Heaven, which will be billions of miles away above it. Far enough away in fact that it will never interfere in the perfection of Heaven. What a fantastic sight for us to observe from the safety of our eternal home, to see this taking place knowing we won’t be affected by it while watching the power of nature interact. We will watch Hell and all the evil that has been in the Universe get caught up in all of this.

the armada

Image via Wikipedia

We won’t need the archaeologists to tell us when this is going to happen because an armada of spaceships from Heaven will have appeared in the sky, in time to rescue those who deserve it that, will be the positive warning the earthlings will get. We have already been warned that it is going to happen but we haven’t been told when, only soon, and what is a couple of thousand times around our sun compared to the time scale God and his crews use so, if soon is in Heaven years it could be a while yet, but soon to the scientists here is earth time and they think one is due, so who knows? The people who God thinks are suitable for Heaven will be lifted off the planet to the space stations away from the danger area where they will be able to watch the fate about to befall the unbelievers as they get their final chance to choose between Heaven and Hell. “ARMAGEDDON!” To reinforce my theories about God being able to influence other planets I will quote Hebrews chapter one verses one and two “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.” Verse Two “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Note the plural “worlds” so not only did he help create earth he also created or helped to create other worlds, giving credibility to my theories of people from other planets being brought here, and Noah using an other planet while the flood receded.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Blog from space (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Photos: NASA's Kepler to seek Earth-like planets (news.cnet.com)
• Reminder 1: Kepler to launch Friday night! (blogs.discovermagazine.com)

Light from distant stars

Image by Mathieu Struck via Flickr

CHAPTER THREE

U.F.O.’S

It is generally thought, by the learned people on earth, that light from distant stars reach us here and of course we take their word for it without giving it much thought. Let us take a different angle on this theory. O.K. so light does travel and there is such a thing as the speed of light, but light does not travel from distant stars to earth reaching us at full strength. Light is instant at the core and only travels so far, and, the further it goes the wider the beam becomes, weakening its strength, restricting its travels, lighting up the sky within its range. If you have been lucky enough to witness an eclipse of the sun, you will have observed during a total eclipse, the light goes immediately the sun is switched off, even though it is so far away. When a distant star in our vision dies the light at the core extinguishes immediately so what the Hubble telescope; clear of earth’s clutter sees in the sky now! IS happening NOW! When you look at a lighthouse face on, as the beam approaches its light is instant, and as it goes round you see the beam side on then, note the distance the beam actually reaches. That’s right, it does not go on for ever, it only goes so far and weakens the wider it gets. Sailors only see the light when they come a certain distance from it, even when they are above the horizon to it. Different lighthouses have different flashes and different distances or strength of beam. Lamp-posts in a dark street together, light up the whole place, the beam or strength of one lamp is not sufficient enough to illuminate all of the street, even if the beam was pointing along the road instead of downwards, it would simply not he strong enough to reach the end of a lengthy street. The stars in our vision light up the night sky (along with our moon) and although the beam, from the stars do not reach us full strength the sheer volume together creates a glow bright enough to illuminate our sky. It’s not the reflection of OUR sun that lights up the distant stars in the night sky they are lit by their own source of power and as their rays do not reach earth in strength it’s our vision that penetrates space, first with our eyes, then with telescopes which are becoming more powerful and more efficient out in space. It is us, that is seeing further, not the light source of planets reaching here, or we would be able to see them more clearly without telescopes, as the light or the beam would have increased in size like a film projecting on a screen making them easier to see. There are plenty of stars out with our vision, yet, with and without telescopes and the delay between us registering, lies with our methods of sighting them not, their light taking so long to reach us.
When Hubble the space telescope was trained on what was thought to be an empty patch of sky, lights from other planets eventually came into view not, them just, reaching us but our vision or in this case Hubble’s vision reaching to the source or core of them. If the strength of light from all the stars did reach here it would be daylight all the time. That explains why from earth, we will never spot the Heavens that this book is about and, by now, you will have realised how far the planets (the largest pieces of debris from the Big Bang) really are and, why their lights will never be seen from earth unless, we produce a powerful enough telescope which is very unlikely.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Amazing Hubble Space Telescope in Action (geardiary.com)
• Public Picks Merging Galaxies for Hubble Snapshot (space.com)
• NASA Wants You To Tell Them Where to Point the Hubble Space Telescope [Space] (i.gizmodo.com)