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)

Time has no mass or substance.

Image via Wikipedia I watched with interest at Stephen Hawking's latest TV program on "time" in which he and other associates of his regard time as an object and not just a measurement, in the same way an inch or metre, or a pint and a litre are, measurements calculated by mankind to assist him in his everyday life.

Fellow colleagues of Stephen Hawking, who consist of cosmetologists and physicists assume that if we had the means we could time travel owing to their theory that time has matter, and can be breached, but as I see it, time has no mass, no soul, no substance, and is nothing but a measurement of how the universe has come from its origin to reach the point it is now at when you are reading this.

Let me take you through some of the points Stephen Hawking made in his program on time travel and I will in my own way dispel the myth that you can travel through time.

Stephen stated at the beginning of his program that he is something of a dreamer and I see no harm in that, but what amazes me is the fact that these learned gentlemen regard time as an object, or as a fourth dimension and forget that time, although it does exist, passes moment by moment, at the same speed everywhere in the universe as it continues to travel outward from the original blast that created it.

Time on earth as we know it is measured by mankind on the activity of our solar system with the rotation of our planet on it's axes measuring the days and nights and the orbit of it around the sun defining the years,MAN MADE CALCULATIONS defining time.
If we lived on another planet like ours in a different solar system with the rotation of the planet on it's axes very much different to ours and it's orbit around it's sun taking much longer to complete, then our measurement of time would be different and coinciding with the actions of that solar system, but time itself would be no different as it would carry on moment by moment, unmeasured in the emptiness of space, only being observed by any intelligent life who might as we do allow their lives to be dictated by it.

In the program, Physicists, try to tell us of wormholes in time that they hope someday will allow time travel, but how can you have a hole of any kind in a thing with no mass or substance?
It is a possibility that there are such things as wormholes in space that can take us to another dimension although I doubt that too, as it is my belief there is only one universe, albeit a massive one with many facets, but that they can be reached directly, if we had the means, and not through some wormhole.

The program uses entities like snooker tables and snooker balls magnified to explain that nothing is completely flat, but these are as I say, entities and time is not, so there is no comparison on that matter which makes a nonentity of their theory in that respect.

Stephen agrees with Albert Einstein that time travels at different speeds at different places in the universe, but as some of Einstein's theories have been proved to be wrong so is their theory of time, making the mistake that it is an object, or their fourth dimension as they call it.

The example of time varying in speeds at different parts of the universe was illustrated by pretending it was possible to fly a spacecraft to a black hole and enter it's orbit without being drawn in. Time for the crew would slow down by a half and if they flew around it for ten years, on exit they would only have lived five years, returning to their world in the future.
The first flaw in that theory is, it is not time that is slowing down in the spacecraft, only the objects as they circle the black hole and are affected by it's G-FORCE or gravitational pull. The second flaw is that, they DID take ten years to go around the hole and when they came out of the orbit it would still be ten years that had passed in universal time, we cannot alter the speed of time no matter what we do or where we go in the universe.

You do not need to go as far as a black hole to prove the point of speed in a circular motion, only look at a solid wheel and observe the way it acts as it rotates with the outer rim traveling faster and covering more ground as it speeds up, while nearing the middle the motion slows down coming to almost no motion at all at the centre.
The reason for that is the fact that it is the outside of the wheel covering the distance and as you approach the middle it has less distance to cover, hence the slowing down process, with the centre having nowhere to go remains still.

The same principle applies to his example of a fast train circling the earth at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. (mankind's measurement)
If it takes the train seven times a seconds to travel around the earth, doubling the speed only means that the train will travel fourteen times a second around the earth and not go into the future as the program makes out.
The faster you go only allows you to cover more distance in a shorter space of time regardless of which direction you are going in, be it in a straight line or a circle.

The reaction of any animate objects in the train would be the same as weightlessness in space or the same as the objects inside a plane when it hurtles from a great height at speed creating the same effect as weightlessness in space.
When Stephan Hawking experienced weightlessness in the aircraft that was used to allow him the feeling of weightlessness, he did not come out of the aircraft earlier than he entered it, he landed at the equivalent time he should have without experiencing travelling through time, and the same thing would have happened with the crew circling the black hole and the passengers in the train travelling at the speed of light or faster.

I conclude that with time having no mass, and being a measurement only, time travel will never occur no matter how many schoolboy dreams revolve around it.
Sometimes our physicists and cosmetologists stretch their imaginations too far in the hope of achieving that schoolboy fantasy and can't see the wood for the trees.

Some dreams just cannot come true even though you are a physicist or cosmetologist, and the only way to reach the future is to live until tomorrow, as for the past..............well we have our memories and archives for that.

One last thought.
If time travel were possible, some physicist or cosmetologist from the future would take great pleasure in returning to this century to tell Stephen Hawking how time travel worked, or returned to the last one to tell Einstein where he went right and where he went wrong, as he would have done had it been possible in his lifetime.

Thankfully, that will not happen as the greed of mankind would dominate the reasons to return to the past, with knowledge from the future being a sure way to gain the riches and power most of mankind strives for.

Some things will never change, especially time, which will always pass at its own speed regardless of mankind with his dreams and fantasies, it's only the moments and events that time creates that changes.

Yes TIME may control our lives, but we have no control over TIME!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Stephen Hawking says time travel should be possible (msnbc.msn.com)
• Stephen Hawking Speaks Out On Space Exploration, Time Travel (space.com)

The puzzle of gravity

Image via Wikipedia

Gravity is one of the biggest problems we have when trying to understand the way the universe works, because we still are trying to figure out how it works, and the importance of its function.
We know it is essential to the way the universe is held together, but if we cannot understand it, then we cannot progress with our understanding of the universe as a whole, and some theories will remain theories.

It is my conjecture that gravity was needed to create the Big Bang, as I explained in earlier chapters of "unfeatheredangels" by gasses contorting as they met, which eventually resulted in the first spinning effect as they reacted with each other.
This in turn created a giant vortex, the suction to draw everything from the atmosphere within billions of light years in circumference into its center, which would include the ingredients that made up the universe.

All the ingredients were around, they only needed the reaction to bring them together, and this massive vortex was the answer.
Everything was mixed up and spat out by the chemical reaction created inside the vortex, by all the ingredients interacting to create the Big Bang, which sent solids, liquids, and gasses, spinning out into the space we are still careering through.

We are still being carried by the blast, that is why the planets are moving further apart, and the galaxies still stretching out through space.

Gravity was started by the spinning motion, and it is simply the orbs that make up the galaxies that are punching their way through space, while spinning and clearing air from their path, both on their outward journey away from the blast, plus the air they are clearing during their rotation on their axes, creating a vortex around them. The suction is in the lower layer, and the surge in the upper layer of the draft, which creates GRAVITY as we know it.

It is more the air or the atmosphere they are clearing during their rotation on their axes, that causes gravity as we know it, pulling objects down towards them that are a certain distance away from them,or inside the bubble created by the rotation, while bouncing others back off into space if they hit the bubble.

Draft is gravity, just like the draft you get when you slam a door, but the displacement of air is the cause of the gravity around the planets of the universe, because they are spinning.

If you are standing on one side of the door the displacement will push you, but if you are standing on the other side you will feel suction or drag, but because the door is only opening and shutting, and not spinning, you won't create gravity.

A sphere on the other hand creates both suction, and the surge of air ahead of it, and as it is spinning the suction, and surge combine to create gravity. The pull downwards, and the bounce outwards, is the suction, and the surge reacting with the spinning motion as they fight with each other.
If it was a rectangle shape, or a square, the punching motion would always be at the front of the object heading through space, and the suction always at the rear, but with the spherical shape none of them has the upper hand, but both are present.
Its simple aerodynamics, if you were at the front of the rectangle, under the air rushing past you would be forced down onto the surface, but if you were at the back you would be brushed off by the air disturbance rushing past taking you away from the object, like a comet shedding particals constantly, as it moves through space.

Gravity can have an effect further away from the sphere than we have calculated, because it could be displacing the atmosphere miles further out from the gravitational pull we know of, and that is what holds smaller planets and Moons in their grasp.

Our Sun's gravitational pull holds all the planets that we have discovered in our solar system and keeps them together to make up the solar system we know of, and the same thing is happening in other parts of the universe, making up galaxies, which in turn affects all other objects hurtling out in the blast created by the Big Bang.

Therefore the gravity created by the spinning motion of all the objects in the universe, reaches out further away from the objects than we first thought and creates the bases that holds the universe together in the form we know, plus the fact that all these objects are still hurtling away from the original blast.

When our spaceships force there way through earth's gravitational pull, they enter into what appears to us as space and weightlessness, but the thin atmosphere they enter into could also be moving around along with the pull of the Sun, and although it has not been measured or noticed by us, this movement could still have a significant effect on the rest of the objects spinning around in the universe.

The newly discovered ring around Saturn is evidence that this is probable, as the dust particles making up the ring are eight million miles away from the planet.
Therefore the gravitational pull of Saturn has at least a radius of eight million miles, probably more.

Also every other object that spins around in the universe could have an effect on every other piece of Big Bang debris, if the atmosphere that surrounds each object blasting away from the original explosion, carries its thin atmosphere around with it.
There are particals in the space between planets,and stars,it is not a vacuum, or heat would not travel through it.

This unmeasured action of movement of thinning atmospheres that surrounds all the spheres could be the reason the universe does not collapse or collide, during its ever outward journey away from the core of the blast, as it acts like a cushion holding everything in its place, or in other words, holding the universe together.
The very answer to the question mentioned at the beginning of this post, the question that we need to answer before we can progress.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FORUM: How Do We Track Galaxy Motions? (space.com)
• Cosmology (slideshare.net)
• Largest Known Galactic Congregation a "Graveyard" (usnews.com)

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)

Our space journey

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Pity help us if it is earth’s last days, the hostile ones will have time to repent (the thousand years mentioned in the Bible) but who would want to he left on earth under these conditions. When our explorers like Livingston went out into the more remote lands they, were the comparatively well educated humans but, they trod carefully and treated the natives with respect, and tried to learn their cultures while teaching their own. We should have learned from those past events remembering, that the tribes of Africa were hostile to begin with until they realised that each culture could learn from one another. Some nations are still hostile to the western world and are still trying to intimidate near neighbours, hoping to reap their wealth or, never wanting to yield to another race that might threaten them. It doesn’t pay them and it won’t pay us if we ignore the superiority of Gods people when they arrive. The most likely reason of the spaceships reappearance in our skies will be for that rescue mission and contact will be on their terms and not vice-versa. Maybe on our journey back to Heaven with them, they will explain the stars in the Universe and point out the black holes to us, call them by name, telling us of the part they played in the evolution of all the wonders being unfolded to us. I don’t want to put you off the journey, but it could he just like a package coach tour, although instead of castles or homes of the famous being brought to our attention, it would be familiar stars once seen from distant earth and as we pass through each constellation we would get a running commentary from our guide in transit of all the extra-terrestrial sights and mysteries we pondered over while on our own planet. I personally am very much looking forward to the awesome moment, when we pass out of what we have come to know as space and finally view that enormous planet which is to become our new home for eternity, at the very center of all, “HEAVEN!” There are countless other wonders I have not mentioned that could he connected to Gods visits in some way. Natural sights and structures, unexplained unnatural marvels, have been omitted simply because there are too many for one book. To mention all of them or go into too much detail would verge on the boring. I have tried to make interesting points when discussing notorious wonders and mysteries and I hope I am introducing a new dimension to the subjects, until such times as someone comes up with proof positive. I, among many others have great faith in these theories coming true, rather than the vaguely guessed solutions previously put before us by the learned people of the past.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Huge Supernova Baffles Scientists (science.slashdot.org)
• Masive black holes are galaxy neighbours (telegraph.co.uk)