back to square one
Timothy Sutter
to the moon is 384400 km and the speed of
light is 299792.458 km/s,
on average, it takes 1.28 seconds for
light from the moon to reach the earth.
so, hypothetically speaking, if you had a human being,
standing on the moon pointing a flashlight at the earth,
which you could see through a telescope on the earth,
and that person, shut off the flashlight,
there would be a lag time of over 1 second
between the time that person turned that
flashlight off, and the time -you- on earth,
stopped seeing the light from that flashlight.
so, for over one second, you'd still think that
the person was flashing a light at you after that
person had already shut that light off.
so now,
let's say that we have a person
on some further distant 'moon'.
let's say that 'moon' is 384400000000 km from earth
and the speed of light is still pretty much the same.
now it takes 1280000 seconds for us to realize
that that person has shut off the flashlight.
it will take nearly -15 days- for us to realize
that the person has turned off the flashlight.
so, if we say that we 'see the flashlight'
we still cannot say that the flashlight is still -on- 'now'
where 'now' is -our- immediate time frame.
now, convince yourself that the light from
a distant Star 10 billion light years 'away'
is most assuredly a Phantom of a light that
has been turned off X number of billions
of years -before- 'we' see that light 'now'
or, at least, if you saw what was
a yellow star like the sun, -then-
it would be long beyond yellow and
converted to a red giant by 'now'
well, actually, if you saw a yellow star like
the sun 10 billion light years away, that star
would be long gone 'now' inasmuch as estimates
for the life of the sun is ~5 billion more years.
so, you'd be seeing a light artifact
of a sun which is not there anymore.
so, what you may conclude is that much
of what some people are seeing through
telescopes isn't -there- 'now' ...
one other little thing,
up to a point, it seems like
you are looking 'out there'
and up to a point, you may very
well be looking 'out there'
but at a certain point,
you have to be looking 'in there'
which is to say, you look
out to 'nearby' galaxy
and it is 'out there'
but, looking much farther 'out'
you flip around and are looking
-into- a more distant -past-
and, if you believe that
the material universe has
been expansive, then, in
the more distant -past-
you flip around and are looking -inwards-
as if you are on the crest of a wave that
is moving -away- from any possible
'central region'
in any attempt to visualize this, you should
-not- try to place the earth in the -center-
of the universe
after a point, the optical illusions take precedence
and -you- are on the -outer edge- looking -inward-
always remembering that you'd be looking
-inwards- to a past that isn't there anymore.
like you're in the outer edge crust
of pie that's been eaten, only you
seem to see a pie still there.
at least some of the pie is eaten already.
but you -seem- to be seeing the whole pie.
and you may -expect- that stuff in
the more remote -past- would appear
to be moving -faster-
and that it is this -outer edge earth-
that is, in fact, 'slowing down'
just as would be expected.
what may give you trouble is;
"why aren't we seeing the empty null region
outside of the universe if we are out along
the edge and not in the center?"
right, if 'we' really are more out along
the periphery of the material universe
and -not- in some central region which
may not even be 'there' anymore,
then, we are seeing the edge, and that is -us-
and we are also seeing some illusions which
have disappeared into time, and, any
'empty null region' wouldn't be 'visible'
to -us- anyway inasmuch as it has nothing
we can relate to with our instruments.
seeing, hearing etc.
but that's drifting off...
back to square one.
all that and, though the
'speed of light' may
be constant,
the velocity of light is not,
and, the interstellar miasma
is just that,
not a vacuum, but more like
a dirty swimming pool but that's
another difficulty entirely.
sort of
and then there's that 'torus' bit;
here look at this; this concerns the
notion that space is "shaped" and somewhat
contrary to intuitive assumption that
space is infinite, in this "model"
space is assumed to be finite.
but here's one of the things,
the shape some propose
is that of a "Torus"
mind you , I have a liking
for the potato chip saddle
shape, but just look at
the Torus first.
and then there's this, but it's unclear
as to what "shape of space" means in
this regard. unless you conclude that
what's "outside" of the universe doesn't
exist in the sense that you normally
reckon existance.
* * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* # *__* *__* *__* *__* *
* __ __ __ __ *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
|S| * * * | |
|P| | |
|A| VOID | |
|C| | |
|E| * * * | |
* * * * * * * * * *
* *__* *__* *__* *__* *
* __ __ __ __ *
* * * * * * * * * # *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * *
alright, so this thing represents
the donut like torus "shaped" universe
and one reason I bring this up here is this;
you'd suggest that you take your
telescope and look out into space
and can "see" for 14 billion
light years,
<all discussion about red
shift aside at this moment>
ok, so, would you propose that you were
seeing the universe thru a tunnel?
or, is the consequence of your
14 billion years statement,
an end to end 28 billion
light year universe?
but then here's the
thing that is proposed,
that the universe is in the shape
of a torus, and the "central region"
is null, meaning not space at all.
one consequence is that you are
actually seeing light that comes
around the bends in the torus.
and what you perceive to be 14 billion
light years is much "closer" viewed
directly thru the central null region.
and then there's the notion of
ruffles in the fabris of space.
you seem to be positting that light
from the far reaches travels
pure linear paths.
and this ain't necessarily so,
not by a long shot.
but look up there at
the torus diagram,
and notice the # in the upper
left(UL) and lower right(LR) "corners"
/mind you, a torus is a donut shape/
but the "distance" between UL# and LR#
may appear to be 14 billion
light years when actually
they are no further than the
closest blobby neighbor.
because the null region in the
center in there and not there.
and the entire universe is "centered"
around a geometric "point"
in the null region.
it's not a center of gravity
nor a central point in space,
it's a center that lays
outside of the shape itself.
and even the universe as a
whole slowly spins on an axis.
and then you get in to the
notions of gentle heartbeat
reverberations of a dynamic
equilibrium.
not a total oscillation,
but teeny tiny echoes.
why am I saying this?
at this moment, in lieu of terminological
quibbling, I thought some further
background should be layed down.
oh, and another thing,
no one is seeing some great
wall of white light at the distance,
so, as of right now, while I don't have
trouble with its being discussed,
it is purely conjectural that there
ever "was" such a "white light"
plasma type blob.
but also, given the
view of space as finite,
and the initial blast opening up a spacial
cavern in some null and void "non-region"
one of the consequences of
*your* view is that a hugely
tremendous spacial cavern was
openned up and all the stuff
has been receding
_back_ from an initial
extreme dispersement.
which is not contradicted by
the assumed observation that
more distant 14 billion year
stuff is running away faster
than more near 4 light year stuff,
i.e., recession has slowed
to a trememndous degree.
which in my view is simply
an artifact of a non vacuous
spacial region, and torus
or bend space
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
lordship is mild, and you will find repose for yourselves."
91) They said to Him, "Tell us who You are so that we may
believe in You."
He said to them, "You read the face of the sky and of the
earth, but you have not recognized the one who is before you, and
you do not know how to read this moment."
°¤ª
°¤ª
only it's got scrittures innit