It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Universe Is - As We See It!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I'd like to start this thread off by saying that science is an invaluable conception for man. Without it where would we be today? How would we advance as a race? How could we save the lives of our loved ones? Get to work on time? And post threads on ATS?

It opens the doors to things we didn't even think were possible, but, is Mainstream Science always right?

I digress here - Since a young age i've always pondered the deeper questions in life; Who am I? Where do I come from? Where do stars come from?

And when I was 16 (9 yrs ago), I asked myself - Where did the water on Earth come from?

I worked out logically, since a Comet is a ball of Ice (or Ice Star), and in Earths past it has been bombarded with all kinds of space objects from Asteroid to Meteorites, the at some point a Comet impacted too!

Sun melts Ice - Ice becomes Water - Water evaporates - Evaporation makes/causes an oxygenic atmospher. Bingo, i'm a genius I thought. Looking back in hindsight it makes even more sense now. H20. Hydrogen TO Oxygen!

From that day i've always believed that all the neccessary elements and ingredients for all of Earths Life forms were "Stored" in a Comet.

6-7yrs later Scientists claim Protein is contained within a Comet! No reward for me. Guess you need at least High School qualifications.


Now to the main thread.

I've been wondering lately about how objects are viewed. Both here on Earth and everywhere else in the universe. You see Mainstream Science suggests (Rather Accepts), that before we can view an object, we have to wait for light to bounce off that object and reach our eyes.

So when we look at say Jupiter (I'm not going into the Maths even though I could) we aren't seeing Jupiter as it is now, but Jupiter as it was 5 minutes ago.

I don't believe this and here are a few interesting Questions/Reasons as to why! Some points in here are irrelevant and Hypothetical, but are relevant to the point I'm making.

1. Let's say an Asteroid and Light started thier travel towards Earth at the Exact same time and path. Let's say the Asteroid travels faster than C (say 200000 MPH).

Would we be able to prevent an Earth impact from that Asteroid? No, of course not, because the Asteroid reaches Earth before the light does, therefore we can't see it!

NOW Let's have the same scenario. Only this time Light has a thousand year head start. Now when the Asteroid is on it's impact course with Earth could we prevent it?

Yes you say? Well since science says you can't see an object until light bounces off an object and reaches your eyes, then you my friend are wrong. This Asteroid is travelling faster than light, so before the light hit your eyes from this Asteroid you'd be dead!


2. Lets say you go to your shed with a torch in your hand. There's a tv in the corner with a film playing (pretend you can't see the tv until the torchlight hits it). You switch on your torch and the light only travels a few centimeters a minute.

(Wouldn't you see the torch light ripping through the darkness of the shed?)

Eventually when the light hits the tv (your dad's sitting in the oppossite corner watching), do we see it immediately or have we to wait for the light to bounce back?

It would be stupid if we had to wait for it to bounce back don't you think?

Your dad's already told you "She dies at the end", because he was 5 minutes ahead of you.



3. On the tv subject. May I add slowing down light is a "theme" of this thread since I believe it puts things into perspective better.

Again let's say that you are standing 100 ft away from a huge outdoor cinema screen and a film starts. But again the tv light is travelling a few centimeters a minute. Does that mean eventually when the light reaches me - and I then proceed to walk forward that the film will start to "Fast Forward"? And if I walk backwards it "Rewinds"?

My uncle nearly P'd himself when I asked him that yesterday.

It would be like travelling to Kepler 22b at a fairly moderate speed and seeing rapid changes to its planet the closer you get. It seems absurd to me.

4. When a man looks through a telescope, and observes a star a light year away, does that REALLY mean that's how the star was last year?

Because seriously that means that the star is God damn knows where at the present time, hell it could hit Earth in 5 minutes time while he's still observing it because it's current light won't reach is for another year!



I actually believe the star is being viewed as it is in it's current state. How it looks, Where it is and how it's being observed

In fact I believe everything in the Universe is how it is currently, when observed, and NOT 500yrs, 2000yrs or 5billion yrs ago, but now.


I believe the eyes are Senors of light and can see it wherever it is or hits, without it having to touch our eyes. I believe that as soon as light hits an object then our eyes can see and perceive that object as it is right now.

I am sure alot of people are going to try and educate me on the Mainstream belief, but i'm a free thinker and this is what I honestly believe.

I hope you enjoyed the thread.

ETA: I had alot more logic to add to this last night but I forgot about alot of it.

If in the next couple of years you find a science article reading "We Were Wrong: Universe Is As Observed", don't forget this thread

edit on 7-12-2011 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2011 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, oxygen is third by mass and abundance, water is all around us, comets would provide negligible additional water to earth during and after accretion. The elements in water is what most of things are to begin with, but it is a good thing that our atmosphere is about 78% nitrogen, or earth would never have stopped burning, even though nitrogen ranks 5th universally, and FYI, carbon is 6th.

One would maybe ask them self why is there so much Neon (4th) and what does it do besides make bar lights.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
No protein was found in a comet, a simple amino acid glycine which is one of 30 something building blocks of RNA and is is the smallest of the 20 amino acids commonly found in proteins, it simply was a hydrocarbon compound detected in very few parts per billion from disputed mass spectrometry inhalation of the ''Stardust' returned. The only real conclusion from the Stardust mission so far is comets can or have been heated far greater that the stigma of them being just dirty snowballs, like a common asteroid, which the same compounds have been detected on. It's no more important to the structure of DNA than simple sugar.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
One last thing I'd like to point out is the great under estimation of distance proposed of how fast sensory data takes to reach things, being the massless photon of light. This is an easy experiment. Have a friend shoot a gun at the other end of a football field and notice you see the smoke before you hear the shot. That's how much longer it took for sound to travel than light, (seeing the smoke). Your estimate of c is off by miles per second and not mph. That right there is incomprehensible that in one second light travels 186,000 (rounded) miles. The light year being underestimated means that the 186,282 miles needs to be multiplied by 60 and that figure multiplied by another 60 to get the miles per hour.

That's a big figure. About 671 hundred million mph, and that is just one hour in a light year. You can do this kind of math! A light year is something like 63,240 AUs, an AU being 93,000,000 miles.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
One last thing I'd like to point out is the great under estimation of distance proposed of how fast sensory data takes to reach things, being the massless photon of light. This is an easy experiment. Have a friend shoot a gun at the other end of a football field and notice you see the smoke before you hear the shot. That's how much longer it took for sound to travel than light, (seeing the smoke). Your estimate of c is off by miles per second and not mph. That right there is incomprehensible that in one second light travels 186,000 (rounded) miles. The light year being underestimated means that the 186,282 miles needs to be multiplied by 60 and that figure multiplied by another 60 to get the miles per hour.

That's a big figure. About 671 hundred million mph, and that is just one hour in a light year. You can do this kind of math! A light year is something like 63,240 AUs, an AU being 93,000,000 miles.


Hi Illustronic, thanks for taking an interest in my thread. Doesn't seem to be many takers on this one!


Ty I am aware of the "Smoking Gun" theory. It's because sound waves travel at a lower frequency than light, I think. But it does lend credence to my theory that what is observed is immediate/happening as we see it.

EG. The universe we observe is exactly how it is now and not as it was way back when, as, as long as an object has light shining on it we can observe it...irrelevant of light speed. As light doesn't carry images.

Imagine the Earth didn't receive any of the Suns light, and there was a huge object in space that didn't reflect the sunlight, wouldn't we see that object? If so then it proves distant places in our universe are NOT observed because of light "carrying" images of those places to our eyes, but because simply light is shone on those celestial bodies, or gives of it's own light!

I apologise for the typo, I meant to write MPS.

You didn't make much reference to the OP in regards to how the universe really looks as we observe it, could you maybe expand on your comments a little, in a simplistic manner as i'm a bit out of my depth.

TY



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join