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.
Enhanced by Zemanta

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!

Enhanced by Zemanta

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.


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.

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.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Light years away from the truth.

Pleiades Star ClusterImage via Wikipedia

I am still trying to prove my theory that the distant stars and constellations we see in space, or the events the Hubble telescope is capturing are happening now, and not light years ago as most scientist would have us believe, and budding scientist latch on to without thinking for themselves.

It is true that our SUN is 8.5 light minutes from EARTH, and it stands to reason that it takes 8.5 light minutes for light to reach us from there, but that does not mean that when the SUN disappears below the horizon, it happened 8.5 light minutes ago, and we are only witnessing it after the actual event.

We can look at the SUN directly with our naked eyes, through the light it is omitting, and it is the rays of the SUN that are moving towards us, carrying heat with it. We look directly through the light with telescopes, and magnify the surface of the sun. If the light was travelling the way the scientists would have us believe, we would not need telescopes to magnify it, the light would reach us as a mass, and not as the dispersed light that reaches us.

If you look at a child's drawing of our SUN you will see squiggly lines coming from a yellow ball, it's these lines depicted by a child that makes my explanation more simple to explain. These squiggly lines are the rays, light rays, the light that travels through space, the light rays we are able to look through, and see the SUN as we look at it, not 8.5 light minutes later. We are looking straight at the source of the light, the actual object that produces the light through massive volcanic action bursting through it's surface.

If we observe a sunsetting among clouds, we see the rays of the sun beaming through the breaks in the cloud formation, and it is these rays that are leaving the sun, moving outward, while expanding into space, past Mercury, past Venus, past Earth, out into the vastness of space expanding and dispersing as it journeys on, losing heat and density the further it goes, until it is just a glow, light years from where it originated, and as long as the source is still active, this will continue.

If the source suddenly ceases, the last rays of light to leave it will continue out into space, but if anyone who had observe that source before it became inactive, was watching the event, they would see the source disappear, and if far enough away would still see the last rays of light, and still be able to reach out and touch the glow that had travelled to their world in that form.

Scientist think that the dying stars, or forming constellations we have observed millions of light years away from us have already died or formed, because of the distance they are away from us, given the light years it takes these images to reach us, but if that was the case it would mean that the image of that light source stopped light years away from earth, never reaching any further and never expanding as light does.

Take a cinema for instance, as the light is projected from the camera lens, onto the screen it enlarges, making the picture clear enough to view, but if you keep taking the screen further away, the picture widens until it is no longer distinguishable, as the light disperses the further it travels.

It is the same principle with the distant stars, they project their light, and it travels through space reaching our skies, and in the case of our nearest star after our SUN which is PROXIMA CENTAURI, we are able to touch it's projected rays as they travel through our corner of the universe, 4.22 light years after they left it's surface, passing us as a glow in the night sky, reflecting off moons and planets as it carries ever onward.

If this is not the case, and the source of that light has gone, why can we still see the source? It is not the image or mass of the light that travels through space just the rays of light. We can focus on that image or star with our naked eyes, light years away, although it is only a shiny dot in our sky, the Hubble telescope can focus on constellations millions of light years away, and if they were not there, it would only be light it would reflect, not a solid image.
It does not take our naked eyes 4.22 light years to focus on our nearest star, after our sun, or 8.5 minutes to focus on our sun, but we can see them.

It is the same with the radar telescopes we use, they bounce signals off distant planets, light years away then tell us with one breath that they might not be there now, then tell us with another breath that if we could reach them we might discover a planet with life on it.
That is the main reason of space exploration, FINDING LIFE, but what is the point if the planets you are discovering do not exist any more.

The scientist's conclusions in this case, makes a mockery of all their theories, because how can you bounce a radar signal off an object that is not there, and how can you see a light source that disappeared light years ago?
What is the point of observing something that does not exist in the only form we can see it, because if we could reach it to find evidence of the BIG BANG, according to their theories the formation would have disappeared or changed so dramatically that we would never be able to prove anything.
The planets they find orbiting around stars, are found by a shadow crossing a light source, if neither is there how can it be possible to find them in this way?
The answer is simple, YOU CANNOT.

They are still there, as are the stars, constellations, dying or otherwise that we or Hubble sees sending light towards our corner of the universe, and as long as we can observe them they are there.

Closer to home, our SUN sends rays of light and heat, towards us which takes 8.5 light minutes to reach us, so pity help us if the Sun itself or it's image, decides to travel at that speed towards us, which when you boil down the scientist's theory, is what happens in regards to light travel.
The universe as we know it will cease to exist a lot quicker than we think, and it will matter not who was right.

I rest my case once again, for now at least.

Someday the right person will take heed of what I am saying, and agree with me, but until they do, our chance of understanding the universe will be restricted.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, 22 January 2010

2012 will not be the end of the world.

Auroras on Jupiter, Saturn, and IoImage by Image Editor via Flickr

This is a piece I wrote in "thephilosopherschair" some time ago, and I thought it might interest my new readers, as the topic comes up often among followers of such themes, so here are my thoughts on the subject.

By Donald Swarbrick.


I would like to start by reminding you, that these are my theories, and would like you to consider them before being sent into a panic by the other theorists who think that the world will end on 21 or 23 of December 2012 by taking their assumptions from one of the Mayan calendars.

Lets look at a couple of the causes that are supposedly going to end the world or put it into such an upheaval that it will make our very existence dubious. Things that have been thrown into the mix are "solar bursts" which the world experiences all the time (the Aurora borealis and the aurora australis being an example of this) which the earth defends its self against by deflecting the rays around the surface keeping them safely above our atmosphere, and regardless of their strength the earth's gravity will continue to deflect them as they are unlikely to become strong enough to counteract our gravitational field, as the bursts are only clouds of charged particles, and not an actual furnace charging towards the earth. We have to remember that there are planets nearer to the sun that get the same sun bursts as we do, and come to no harm although they get a stronger surge than us, and the bursts continue to the outer planets too, with no damaging results.

The earth has encountered strong solar bursts before and survived, the only difference this time is the fact that we have satellites up in the area that the bursts are being deflected through, and given the uses we have for these satellites it will cause a lot of disruption to the way of life we have become accustomed to, but once they are past we will be able to put things back the way they were although it may take some time. So if that is a portrayal of doomsday to you, then just be patient as everything will return to normal, or as they say "normal service will be resumed as soon as possible."

Geomagnetic reversal, or polar shift is another expectation by some in the dreaded 2012 but as it takes 5,000 years for this to complete once the cycle has begun, and if we only had till 21 or 23 of December 2012 for its completion then we would be much nearer to the end of the cycle with more distinct signs, other than global warming, or volcanic and geological movement to convince us. Earth has gone through many changes and the signs that the doom merchants are using to convince us that earth's end is near are only natural occurrences that the world has to endure through it's lifespan, but will not dictate its demise.

The Mayans were very knowledgeable people both in astronomy and mathematics 2,000 years BC so you have to ask, where that knowledge came from, and why are the few descendants that are left, not as clever, or, why did they not carry on from where their ancestors left off giving us more to work on other than the records they left behind?

I wrote a piece in "unfeatheredangels" on the subject of some of these intelligent races, all from a similar time zone and area where each of their cultures were only slightly different although they were not connected to each other, and made the suggestion that they could have gained their knowledge of the stars by traveling here from a planet that had become endangered, and were brought here by the same spacecraft described in "The Old Testament" by Ezekiel. This may sound outrageous to you but when you consider the knowledge they had then, compared to the knowledge the supposed learned people of today have, and why that knowledge was not passed down and elaborated on by their following generations, it becomes a more logical theory.

When you study their rituals and beliefs, which don't always come from myths or legends, you can, if you study the beliefs,and look at them with an open mind, begin to see where my theories take some logic. Take one, for instance, the "Zapotee" (another race from around the same time zone and area as the Mayans) who think they come from an elite race among the clouds, so if they WERE brought here from another planet, that is where their belief would have originated, and not from myths or legend as we have been led to believe. It has been thought that most of these races I am speaking about suddenly appeared on earth,and their ancestry has been nigh impossible to trace, so that is all the more reason not to discount my theory.

The Mayans had two calendars, one called Mesoamerican long calender, the other being the Venus cycle, and they took calculations from the stars for many different reasons that I am not going into now ( look up the Mayans on the Internet for all the facts you need) so why has the public been frightened by one of them just because it happens to last for 5,125 years and expires in December 2012. They only used it for a certain purpose and whatever purpose that was, was not needed after 2012, not because the world was going to end but because the astronomical reason they were using it would have become outdated as the stars alignments altered. They never predicted the end of the world although they were knowledgeable enough to do so, if it was possible at all, and would have made it more clear than a date on some calendar they were going to discard in 2012 had they survived in the strength and knowledge of their origin, and not have mysteriously faded into oblivion, taking their exceptional knowledge with them.

The Mayans, and the other races in and around that time knew more than they should, and one reason that cannot be discounted is the fact that they could have gained their knowledge first hand from the space travellers who brought them here, the same people the bible is referring to. Their calendars could have been brought from their own planet as they do not fit with earth's cycles, and the calculations taken from there, while the long count calendar that all the fuss is about, having nothing whatsoever to do with earth.

If the person who started all the fuss had explained to the gullible people more of the culture and rituals of the Mayans, then there would be more understanding of such an intelligent race, and less ridiculous theories on a prediction they never made or suggested.

Thankfully we have the Internet to fall back on now, so if you want to put your mind at ease on the 2012 subject, then I suggest you go and study the Mayans and make your own mind up instead of listening to other peoples theories, mine included.

Some of you will never be convinced that 2012 is not going to bring disaster to the earth, but I will be under the clock with a red rose in my lapel, to meet any of you who care to turn up on the 25Th of December 2012 to prove I was right. What clock? I will disclose that on the 24Th but remember to buy my Christmas present. A bottle of Bacardi would be fine to bring in the new year of 2013................? Now thirteen is an unlucky number to some..................................... I wonder??????

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]