Thursday, 17 September 2009

The measurement of time.

Orion Nebula: Planetary Protection--X-ray Supe...Image by Smithsonian Institution via Flickr

We measure time according to our solar system but, why do we think that our time is the only time measurement in the universe, and why do we assume,every stage of events taking place out there is measured by our time?
It is by us here on earth, but not necessarily by everyone in the universe.

We know there are enormous planets in deep space within our vision, and when we can reach even further we will discover solar systems in a very much bigger scale than ours.

If,life does exist on one of these massive planets,(which it will, of that I have no doubt) their time scale will be very different to ours, as it will be measured according to their solar system which, if so very much larger, will reflect a very much slower pace of time, therefore, their measurements of time and distance to other planets, and galaxies, even their lifespan itself, will be calculated in a completely different manner.

Our solar system, in comparison to one like that, will seem to them, like theirs in a fast forward motion, and our lifespan merely a blip in time, which of course it is, but we have never stopped to think just how insignificant our solar system is, and always assume that we are the superior race in the universe.

Mankind as we know it has many weaknesses, one of them being his lifespan, cut short by sickness, wars, or other disasters that can befall earth, or simply old age which in most cases lasts less than one hundred earth years. A blip in universal time.
We are barely here in this form, before we are gone again, leaving our ideas, or discoveries for future generations to elaborate on, which limits the progress we make.

Another life form evolving in a solar system so much larger than ours, that works in a completely different way to ours, will have evolved much stronger than us, with less weaknesses to shorten their lifespan.
The very fact that their time measurement is so much longer than ours will make their lifespan longer, if not eternal, as their solar system having evolved billions of years before ours would have given them time to perfect life, also given the fact that their ideas and discoveries will not have been hampered by death.

Another reason to believe such a planet as this would have a different time scale is, that if it used our time scale, one side of the planet would be earth years behind the other, or earth years ahead, just as we in Britain are hours behind Australia, or ahead of America, so in theirs, they will have calculated time to suit their solar system, long before time was needed on earth.

Now that puts the measurement of time and distance into a different prospective, which would make the universe a much smaller place for them and would enable them to travel through space without having to worry about distance.

If you look at the universe through their eyes, the galaxies they, or we can see are not billions of light years away, but only a short journey away in the exceptional conveyances they will have perfected on that planet, therefore they will have reached these stars. They will be able to confirm my theories in my last post that what you are seeing out there is happening now, and not some light reflection from an event that happened light years ago.
It stands to reason that the light source HAS to be there if we can still see it in a structural form, solid or gas, otherwise it would just be light energy we would see, and have nothing to travel to in the case of dying stars.

Scientist contradict themselves by looking out at other solar systems light years away, and recognize a planet orbiting around a star, and when telling us about it lead us to believe what they have witnessed is occurring out there now, but then they try to tell us that the forming galaxies or the light from the dying star they see, happened billions of light years ago, and the event is only reaching us now.
What is the point of looking out into the universe for other life forms if you think the light reflection you are looking at happened many light years ago, because according to their theories, how would we know if the promising planet that could hold life still exists, or if it died, and the light reflection of its death throes have not reached us yet?

If we want to unfold the mysteries of space, we have to take into consideration, that we are only a speck of dust in the universe in comparison to the enormous planets with life on them, and our life span is only a fraction of time in comparison to theirs.
We have to admit our inferiority in the universe, accept that other life forms that may look the same as us, can reach us, and have reached us.
That is what the bible is all about, people from another solar system being on earth.
You do not have to believe the bible but you do have to admit that if such a planet exists, everything I said is possible, and given everything I have said, you have to admit that more than likely such a planet does exist.
Out there in the universe, the measurement of time, and distance IS completely different,and will bring a whole new definition to our observations, and calculations, that we have surmised from our lowly position in space.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, 10 September 2009

Einstein made many observations about our solar system.

Albert Einstein during a lecture in Vienna in 1921Image 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."

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]