Sunday, 13 March 2011

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.

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

Click to enlarge >

Kepler
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.

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Published blog.

Karen Campbell, crime fiction author, giving a...

Image via WikipediaThis blog is now out in book form mistakes and all, under the title of "Before Genesis to Revelation and Beyond" and can be purchased online through Authorhouse, Amazon and Waterstones, or order it at any good bookshops under the category of PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION/ INSPIRATIONAL/ SPIRITUALITY.
It makes much better reading in book form.

Monday, 27 September 2010

Time has no mass or substance.

The supermassive black holes are all that rema...

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!

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.

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.

Unfeathered Angels

Sunday, 13 March 2011

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