Image via Wikipedia

By Donald swarbrick.

The 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

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

I have mentioned that some calculations are made by our scientist from theories, and as we all would like to go back to the past, they seem to think that by studying and reaching the source of the images the Hubble telescope sends us, they will be able to do that.

They think the light reflections that Hubble captures, of dieing stars and new constellations being formed have taken place billions of years ago and because they take their calculations from the theory that these images have travelled at the speed of light to reach Hubble, and the distance covered by the light source would take so many light years to reach it, then the images must be billions of years old, which in turn will give them an insight to the origins of the universe.

We know how man made electric light functions, but we have to ask if terrestrial light functions in the same way.

Electric light only travels so far and the farther out it goes the broader it becomes, weakening its strength.

An example of this is street lights that are positioned at certain distances apart so that each lamps beam connects with the other to light up the street. If the light did not weaken then we would only need one lamp to illuminate the whole street, or even further if it was unobstructed, like the images captured in space by Hubble.

Another example of light weakening and broadening is when a lighthouse‘s beam is observed by a sailor over the open sea. It is clear to see the beam as it swings round, just how much it widens the further away it gets from its source, also how much weaker the beam becomes as it widens, but it is also noticeable that the light only travels so far, hence the different strengths of lights for the given situations.

Laser light on the other hand is an intense narrow beam as it is amplified, stimulated by the emission of photons from excited atoms or molecules, which makes it behave in a different way to basic electric light, allowing it to travel great distances, but AS electric light, it is still man made.

Terrestrial light, like our sun is natural, and being a natural light source it behaves in the same way as man made electric light, weakening as it projects out into space, and as the beam widens it also limits the distance the rays travel.

If you think of all the stars and light sources out there in space, and take into consideration the power produced by them, heading towards earth, then the light and heat radiated by them, if not weakened, would be so intense, creating dazzling daylight twenty four hours a day, that we could not survive anywhere in the universe, let alone this planet.

That is why we cannot go back to the past by studying the images sent by Hubble,because these occurrences that are being captured out there are happening NOW, not something that happened billions of years ago.

It is us that is reaching out to the light source through Hubble NOT the light source reaching us, like the sailor approaching the lighthouse, the beam becomes stronger and clearer as he nears it, but it is the same source that was seen faintly on the horizon, and if an object came between them, the light hitting the object would be obscured immediately leaving a shadow resembling that particular object, reappearing immediately the object was removed, or if the object was big enough or close enough to the light source it would obscure the light altogether. That is one example of my theory, and although the distances between a lighthouse beam and terrestrial rays are vastly different  in comparison, the end result is the same.

If we had the means to travel to that light source where a star is dieing or a constellation is being formed then we would be able to see the exact same thing is happening at the source, as is happening in Hubble’s images. How can you possibly reach the outer beam, then travel through it to a void left after the star died, or to the reaction in space that created the new constellation you were now travelling through? The source of the light  still has to be there to power the beam or ray’s projection, on the same principle as a movie camera projecting an image onto a screen. When the camera is switched off the picture disappears, and when the star dies, projected images of its life dies with it, and does not leave a record of its past on some screen in space.

Sound on the other hand is different. If you switch the source of the sound off, the noise will carry on, echoing through the air waves until it too becomes so weak that it fades out. Perhaps that is why our scientist think that light carries on once the source has been switch off, but given the experiments they do, they should have realised by now that, that is not the case, and forget trying to reach the past by these unlikely means.

They will discover something new in space every day if they look hard enough and in the right place , and perhaps they might discover the origins of the universe, but it will not be at the end of a light beam.

The past is in the past and the only way we can find out about it is by excavating the remains of it, be it on earth or out there in space, the latter being well out of our reach. Even with the excavations on earth we still have to guess and surmise the origins of the human race, with our ideas having to be altered regularly as disturbances to the earth’s crust uncovers new sources and artifacts for man to investigate.

How can we possibly think that we can discover the origins of the universe from earth when we are still struggling to decipher the discoveries on our own planet?

My conclusion is, that, even out in the deepest of space the past is the past, and has gone, with no way of going back to it, not even if we can find a way to reach the light sources the scientist think will take us there, so they will have to have a rethink, just like the archaeologists who excavate and theorise on our past until new discoveries and realizations are made.

The universe travels onward and outward, and the only going back will be when it stops, and the gravitational pull of the immense planet at the core of it all drags everything back, but time will still be carrying forward with new events taking place, and the old ones, though not  forgotten………………………… in the past where they will stay, regardless of mans ambition to return there.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Amazing Hubble Space Telescope in Action (geardiary.com)
• Popular Giant Star Shrinks Mysteriously (space.com)
• 3-D View Of Remote Galaxies — When Universe Was Half Its Current Age (sciencedaily.com)