Beyond the Horizon
Looking up at the night sky we can observe distant star systems, which are located at great distances from our planet earth. And these distances are so great that they are calculated in terms of light years and astronomical units.
In relation to the most distant stars we are told that the light we can now see took billions of years to reach us. This light is said to have traveled through space at the speed of light for billions of years in order that we might see it today.
At the present time the speed of light is based on the time it takes light to travel a distance of one meter in a vacuum, which is said to be exactly 1/299,792,458ths of a second. This means that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.
Also, the speed of light is said to have remained constant for billions of years, whereby it might be possible to determine the distance involved.
Consequently astronomers take photographs of distant star systems and identify these photos as representing observations of conditions as they existed billions of years ago. In other words it is possible to photograph events having occurred billions of years ago.
This would suggest that what we see is not what it appears to be at the present as it would have changed somewhat over the course of billions of years. But we cannot see those changes, as they correspond to that which has occurred over the course of billions of years.
So if you get far enough away you can see the past in the present. Sounds a little bit strange doesn’t it, because this suggests that space and time are equally proportional in relation to the constancy of light speed.
So time must be equally proportional regardless of distance and if that is true we are stuck with a linear universe, which must have been structured on the basis of static terms of reference.
In other words the universe is not dynamic, but exists in a static state or have we got a static dynamic universe?
Where is science going with this, as it is a contradiction to even consider the possibility of measuring billions of light years. It is not even rational, never mind logical.
If the universe is acceleratively expanding the value of time and space must be changing, in terms of a dynamic state. So how do you fit static terms into this picture?
And how does the speed of light remain constant over billions of years, but what is even more important; exactly what is a billion years?
Both the past and future exist simultaneously relative to the non-absolute present moment and in that time itself is dynamic it is either accelerating or decelerating relative to the system of reference. So what are these billions of years that can be stretched out like bed sheets if the past and future exist simultaneously?
Someone is going to say this is space/time. Right and the universe is linearly structured just like a brick school house? I don’t think so.
So just how far off are we on our assessment of universe?
If the universe is not linearly structured and static terms cannot be applied to the condition of universe it would appear that the speed of light is not a linear consideration either.
It would appear that in a truly dynamic universe time must in fact slow with distance in relation to the isometric propagation of space from any system of reference, where space itself is a condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference.
Therefore we can see that if light traveled linearly through space, the light of these distant star systems would never reach us, nor would the light of our sun reach them. So how is it that we can see distant star systems?
We observe what there is to be seen in the present moment, as the expansion of universe is a simultaneous response corresponding to the underlying force of energy focused to the center of our planet earth. The process of sight does not respond to the linear motion of light, but to the dynamics of field in which the observer is situated. And if those dynamics cause a simultaneous response to occur at a distance, the observation of distant star systems involves a dynamic response to the condition of field.
As both the past and future exist in a simultaneous state relative to the present, neither the past or the future correspond to a linear distance in space, but to a non-linear relationship between the present, past and future.
Therefore the photos of distant star systems do not have a historical reference, as the past is confined to the simultaneous condition of universe which is devoid of space and time corresponding to the present moment.
Time is not a linear consideration in terms of the structure and order of universe, as linear durations of time have a purely sociological base with no corresponding relationship to the actual age or size of universe.
Consequently it is impossible to know the age or size of universe in relation to static terms of reference, just as it is impossible to know whether we exist in the past or future of the earth’s existence, as there is no absolute present moment by which to make such a distinction possible.
But, in relation to all other systems, in terms of planets, moons and stars etc., remaining relative to our planet earth, the existing condition of each of these systems must represent either a future or past condition remaining relative to the present moment of the earth’s existence.
How much further off the tracks we could possibly get with our modern innovations of thought I do not know, but the existing perception of universe most commonly accepted to represent the situation does not come marginally close to the mark.
posted by David Barclay @ 4:02 AM
2 comments
.jpg)
