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 they contradict themselves in this way which I have copied 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.
The source of the light HAS to be there still or the radio signal would carry on past it if it hadn’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.

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.

By Donald Swarbrick.

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

• Horizon: Who’s Afraid of a Big Black Hole? and Gordon Ramsay’s F Word | TV review (guardian.co.uk)
• FORUM: How Do We Track Galaxy Motions? (space.com)

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.
“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

• Why We Need to Reach the Stars (and We Will) [Space] (gizmodo.com)

The thing that puzzles us most about space now is, how black holes are formed and what the dark matter in space consists of, as we think, that by solving these questions we will discover more about the birth of the universe.

In my opinion, black holes originate in a similar way to tornados, although they gather their momentum by chemical reactions from undetected gases within the dark matter interacting to ignite a circular motion, which increases with such velocity it creates a vortex so massive and violent that it becomes an enormous space blender, drawing everything in its range inside it, where more chemical reactions and fusions take place until it spits out such a potent mixture, it results in new galaxies being formed.

The dark matter will conceal within it, gases and chemicals that we have no knowledge of, or will be able to trace with our instruments, mainly, owing to the fact that they do not exist in our part of the universe, and its only if we can  reach manually, these outer limits where they are, will we ever be able to distinguish them.

The answer to the origin of the universe does lie within these black holes, as it would have been the first, and largest of them that kicked off the chain reaction that we now know as the universe.

Gases swirling in the vast emptiness that was there before the BIG BANG, would have eventually met up setting off a chemical reaction that resulted in the biggest vortex you could imagine, and over billions of years it would have enlarged so much that every kind of gases and atoms that were concealed in the dark matter would have been gathered within it, which set off other reactions, ending up in the explosion we know as the BIG BANG, where the first galaxies would have formed once the blast eased enough to allow the planets to settle.

The reason we have new black holes forming is because,  the outward forces of the blast carrying the debris of the original BIG BANG, disturbs the dark matter it is being pushed through, which draws the same ingredients  that started the first chain reaction together, resulting in black holes smaller than the original but big enough to create galaxies.

Although the original black hole formed the biggest percentage of the universe, the smaller black holes scattered throughout space continue to explode periodically, creating stars and constellations, boosting the outward progression of the universe caused by the BIG BANG, hence the reason the universe is still expanding like a giant firework spreading out over the sky.

Once the ingredients that cause the reactions burn out, and there are no more black holes forming, the universe will slow down until it eventually comes to a stop, retracting back towards the largest planet at it’s centre, drawn by it’s gravitational pull, not just dropping out of the sky like the burned out firework, but regrouping at the centre where it all began, and only God knows what will happen then, because the planet at the centre of it all is heaven, formed at the core of the BIG BANG.

If you observe what happens when an explosion takes place you will notice that the largest pieces of the solid object that has been blown up, stay close to the centre of the blast, while the smaller fragments scatter and spread, with the smallest travelling farthest.

The largest solid object from the big bang, spun around, where over a period of billions of years it became rounded in shape, and it’s spinning motion affected the nearest solid objects to it, which caused them to spin on their own axes, creating gravity, and eventually life was formed on some of the planets.

With heaven being formed first, life would have originated there, hence the reason for God’s people  being so much more advanced than the rest of the universe, gaining knowledge, and utilizing the  materials sourced on their planet over the billions of years head start they had over any other planet, leading to their immortality, space travel, and their ability to assist the universe when need be.

I have to wonder though, if even God can tell us where the first wisp of gas came from, or the contents of the first atom, questions that I think will never be answered no matter how much else we discover about this amazing chemical reaction we have become part of.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Galactic Black Holes May Be More Massive Than Thought (usnews.com)
• New Observations Suggest Mid-Size Black Holes Exist (space.com)
• New Class of Black Holes Discovered (wired.com)
• A snapshot from 13 billion light-years away (thestar.com)