I understand that my ideas, if they hold any merit, will change how we view the entire Universe. But I don't think that is a bad thing if there is truth in it.
Physics will no longer break down at the "Black Hole". Since we'll know where such mass (matter and energy) is going. That is probably the most exciting thing about my idea.
It also explains the potential for an increasing Universe, including Dark Mass(matter/energy), etc...
I hope you enjoyed my vision of the Universe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring Red Shift:
Astronomers use the red shift to explain how galaxies are moving away from us. (And moving away from each other, etc...)
The problem with this is quite simple.
We are looking at what was happening many, many, many years ago. (Because it takes so much time for the light to reach us. When we look out very far we are actually looking at ancient history. Not what is happening "today" and we have to take that into account. Best thing to do would be taking measurements on one day. Then repeat it a year or more down the road, compare them, and then make predictions from there and test again in another year or two down the road. Rinse and repeat over and over til your findings and predictions match.)
There has to be more to it than just checking the "red shift". I'm still looking around online to find more information but its all pretty vague. The real information is probably learned as you become an actual astrophysicist. So, I'm not sure if I'll find anything else that is fruitful.
I'll post more about it if I find anything more solid.
I guess I need to find out what the closest Galaxies are and what their behaviors are.
We know Andromeda(nearest spiral galaxy) and the Milky Way may, millions of years from now, begin to combine.
And they say it is 2.5 million light years away from Earth. (Milky way being 100,000 light years across.)
This is the part that isn't explained. How do they figure this out?
Think about it this way. If it takes the light 2.5 million years to reach us. It would then actually be 2.5 million years closer to us than it appears, correct? (Or did they figure all of this stuff out already and it's current distance is an approximation based on their calculations?)
I guess they didn't calculate an approximate distance. Because this is what I read here, http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/astronomy-topics/andromeda-galaxy.html, Which is talking about seeing 2.5 million year old light. (The same distance they say it is away from us.)
Hmmm... (This could be another mystery about some "dark mass". Since some objects may not be where we think they are.)
I'll add more information if I can find any.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traveling at warp speed: There is a cool video about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXyQ92SPWds
If my idea of time/space/mass holds any merit. There is one thing they are missing if they want to travel past the speed of light without "time/space/mass" trying to pull them back.
They may need a way to "create mass" greater than their own mass and slowly leave it behind in their wake. Maybe this would be enough to confuse "the system" and they may be able to go much, much faster without such forces trying to hold them back. Because the greater mass they leave behind may accommodate/confuse "the system" and such forces will happily be applied to the mass left behind and less force to the spacecraft and even the occupants themselves. Of course this is all hypothetical based on my view of time/space/mass. (But they are not forcing themselves through time like the Big Bang may have. They are essentially "riding a wave" and the physics behind that may be much different.)
How to achieve such a feat would be for the scientists. (Because as far as I know you cannot create nor destroy mass.)
What would they see at the other end? This is the confusing part if my theory is correct. Wherever they go it will actually be in another time(than we visually see)/maybe even a different layer. (Maybe Star Trek was correct about one thing. And that's about being "lost".)
The issues with such travel....
Leaving large amounts of "mass" around and traversing space and time may actually have negative results to the overall spectrum of space/time and if there are different layers, etc.. (My point: Objects that were safely out of harm of what we perceive as a "black holes" may be forced into the "black holes" to accommodate changes in mass between different layers. Again, this is only true if my idea about time/space/mass has any merit.)
Even if you don't need to leave mass behind when "riding the wave". Their mass may still need to be accounted for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BIG BANG and TIME:
How can a "Big Bang" even occur without some form of time?
If it was some "state" changing to some other "state"... (some type of reaction or something.)
How can that occur without some form of time?
What we know....
"Whatever it was" was in one state. (Where did it come from? Did it build up? etc?)
It HAD to have changed to another state or NOTHING would have EVER occurred.
(How many states was this "something" in before it did what it did?)
So, either TIME and SPACE was the first thing to come about. (Before anything happened.)
OR
Time and Space already existed...
No comments:
Post a Comment