what if one mistake changes the entire universe

what if one the foundational things in physics was wrong

Light can be all things
Light can be everywhere even when unseen by our eyes like in a black hole. light can be in a vacuum, in freezing cold space and at the heart of a star. Light can be reflected, refracted and split into component parts. White light is made up of colours and to our eyes and our vision, white light reflects off an object and allows us to see its reflected surface in a colour. Light can be lensed from the effects of gravity (gravitational lensing) so you can see objects obscured from view behind an object of large enough mass to curve space time.
Vision is refected scattered light bouncing off objects giving them a refracted colour and an optical distance. The eye is a light detector and the brain is a computational computer that takes that image and portrays the information to the observer. Part of the light conspiracy is that we are told that there is something strange about light and it speeds and time over distance.
Light is one of the most important things to science
It allows direct observation of a subject under experiment
It allows us to view objects in the distant universe and do calculations about how far away they are and if they are travelling away from us.
So light is actually really important for the observer (perspective optics) and really important for the observation of objects in the distant universe through a telescope
But like light travelling through a pair of glasses (optical) it can be focused
Travelling through glass it can be reflected (angle of incidence) redirected
Travelling through space light can encounter dense clouds of gas or vacuum or plasma or mass bending space time in a gravity lensing effect
All these things should have an effect on our perspective optically yet we are to believe that under any and all conditions light travels at a constant speed .
Why do we cling to the notion that light always behaves as it does no matter the environment or the medium it travels through or the density (or lack of) in gravity bent space time
The fact is without light travelling at different speeds through the bent space time there is no lens effect and we would not witness Einsteins rings (gravity lens) and if curvered space time funnelled the hidden object at the same speed, light has travelled the curve in less time than if the light had travelled if it was direct to the observer
Does the helio sphere create a lense?
What compromises a lense and what effect would the termination shock of the helio sphere have to our optics as they transverse this boundary?
Can light change states in different circumstances and take on different characteristics and behave differently?
When we use light for so many things why is there a speed limit for all conditions and all mediums that may effect the path light travels?
What would be the effect of finding Einstein was wrong and our calculations are all based on some thing that is only true to the observer here on earth but different ouside the telescope like effect the helio sphere ?

What if we are wrong about light?

xploder

Xploder...

Awesome thread you just started..S&F....Seems like you're onto something here:

"The fact is without light travelling at different speeds through the bent space time there is no lens effect and we would not witness Einsteins rings (gravity lens) and if curvered space time funnelled the hidden object at the same speed, light has travelled the curve in less time than if the light had travelled if it was direct to the observer"

This is amazing bro...if you can somehow prove this then, everything that we been taught about light is "maybe" wrong? Everything in your post makes sense...and thats the scary part of it...cause it means we been mislead on purpose....mmmmmmm...I bet most people would hate admit they've been lied to all their lives....

"What would be the effect of finding Einstein was wrong and our calculations are all based on some thing that is only true to the observer here on earth but different ouside the telescope like effect the helio sphere ?"

Thanks for sharing bro....appreciate it!!!

Regards,

ringht_n_wrong

According to my optics professor light travels loss less through the ordinary medium.
This is apparently true.
If waves are made according to the way light is made then these waves will also travel loss less.
Quantum jumps in atoms is the bonfire source of light.
So we must make jumps in this medium to make the loss less waves.
Light has been said to travel at slower than light in different mediums such as plastic or glass.
This also seems true.
Radio waves meet with various interference.
Magnetic penetration has problems in different materials.
The search for an all penetrative wave seems crucial for the 21st century.

Some think the wave exists today say from HAARP and is a danger as you
say "one mistake changes the entire universe" like a HAARP wave
galactic catastrophe.
However I think HAARP is harmless.

I was always under the impression that because of our atmosphere that we actually are looking at the Universe closer than if we were outside of our atmosphere because of the "lens" effect. I swear I once heard that astronauts had difficulty finding our Sun at first because they were expecting to see the same sized Sun (or perspective) out there, when in fact it was significantly smaller.

This led me to believe that "out there", outside of our atmosphere we do not see the Milky Way as we do down here. To be on the Earth's surface it is like we are inside of a living Telescope. It makes me wonder if perhaps at different times throughout man's history that in the Sky man was able to witness an "accelerated" view of the cosmos and sometimes a closer look. Could it be that one day we might wake up and see the planets and celestial bodies as if they were right next door? Maybe light will be nudged differently as we enter the Galactic Rift during this trip through the precession cycle.

At any rate, if any of that were true than I cannot help but feel that the heliosphere does the same thing optically and that this distortion is keeping us from understanding the full grasp of the Cosmos. We need to get out there to find out! Voyager must be speaking volumes to us but the lay-folk can only hope to find out (in time).

I think once we understand a little bit more, outside of mainstream Physics, we will happen upon some very important secrets. Such as I see the Electric Universe Model more clearly, I cannot imagine the OP's hypothesis as being any less valid. Bravo for such incredible insights that the Speed of Light can be other than constant; it certainly would account for all the millions of people who experience leaps of time. S&F

reply to post by XPLodER


1 change will always change a universe. 2 changes will change the universe even more if not forever.
'Modern physics' is not modern as you must factor the impossible into the equation. The grandfathers of physics forward our knowledge but are never 100%. Evolution of a theory shows that no theory is correct unless can be falsifiable like Carl Popper suggests. Even then it is only falsified through biased and tinted specs through modern interpretation it does not mean a theory is true.

Light may not exist at all as it could be a pre cursor or could be the minimal understanding of our limited development but each step is as important as the laughable steps that proceed it, light could be a synesthesia that we adhere to, it is impossible to objectify most things.

Light may only be relative in conjunction to a blackhole or light may be the opposite of what we believe as we have only tested as the speed of light is only comparable to the matter we test it against. We understand little of the matter in the universe, we guestimate the composition of stars but know very little.

Even the greatest minds of our time are merely idiots in the future retrospectively. We can only process information in the supposed objective nature that we percieve that is always subjective.

I am not stating you know nothing, I am stating relatively we all know nothing relative to ultimate truth. Postulating is worthless other than to hypothesise and impress by a informed guess. Even the most basic principles are not set in stone.

Stop trying to definitively define the undefineable and enjoy the not knowing

reply to post by hayzues


i think there is some value to gain from such an idea
imagine if ligh travels much faster in the interstella medium =time distance calculations
imagine if our solar system acted like a lense into the universe and distorted space time as an optical effect
what we see as 20 light years could be 50% closer = half light speed for 20 years

i think when you realize our perspective could be altered by the medium of what were looking through and that the way light behaves beyond the helio sphere is still an unknown and this density change can greatly alter distance calculations because we use light in the calculation.

on topic i wounder what would happen if we discovered light in the interstella medium behaving unexpectedly throwing doubt on how far the nearest star may be

we may exit our helio spheres lens and find stars are alot closer than our perspective here allows

xploder

And what if my uncle was a woman. Just think! He would then be my aunt!

So far that "one mistake" hasn't been shown to be there and it's as if people aren't trying to. What if...you were the one to find that one mistake that changed everything?

Or would it really change anything?

Would we not lead pretty much the same lives we lead now? Would we not have jobs to occupy our time? Would we not have families to care for?

Star and flag! Good topic for discussion indeed.
You are right on money, light is everything... The idea that Enstine had lead us on the wrong path is somewhat misleading in itself. Please to this utube audio book by Cregg Braden it shines a lot of light that we we are not passive observers of outside world we are creating it, we are it!

www.youtube.com...

I tell you one big mistake that would affect our area of the "local" universe", and that's an Ice-9 reaction when they fire up the CERN accelerator on 11/9/10.

Originally posted by Phage
And what if my uncle was a woman. Just think! He would then be my aunt!

i dont understand your sense of humor on this one to describe the idea suposition is used

So far that "one mistake" hasn't been shown to be there and it's as if people aren't trying to. What if...you were the one to find that one mistake that changed everything?

if we had no way of "seeing" the lens we wouldnt know it was effecting our perspective
i am the person who has theorized this effect as far as i can find and have brought it forward to be digested by members such as your self for a basic form of peer reveiw.
this leaves me open to ridacule and slander for an idea that may be proved or disproved
in the mean time i share it with ATS to garner opinion like yours

Or would it really change anything?

if our calculations that have to do with light were wrong alot of the asumed knoledge we have would be in question
time, distence, speed calculations would be incorrect (being correct is important to science) as it is to you

Would we not lead pretty much the same lives we lead now? Would we not have jobs to occupy our time? Would we not have families to care for?

come on phage if that was the attitude then why look up at night?

its always easer to find fault than to propose a new topic or thread so im going to say this one idea is capable of explaining interstella space travel and make it more possable in the minds of people to imagine traveling the vast distence to another planet

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Why did you have to create a new thread on the same topic?

Check out these examples of scientists attemping to and actually (albeit only technically) stopping or slowing laser light.

io9.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
anti-state.com...
www.news.harvard.edu...

All about 10 years old. Assuming advances have been made, imagine what they can do now.

reply to post by Phage


the first thread was how a helio lense would work which was apparently to hard to follow
this thread is about the implecations to science how attitudes would change
how would science acept a mistake or deal with the realization that the universe is different than we thought

and that we may have been visited by et and the over used excuse of how would they get here over such vast distences

this thread isnt about how the lens works
its how would things change if our perspective changes
are we ready for change?

those sorts or questions

xploder

reply to post by inivux


i thank you for adding to my thread
your right about the advances in science advancing our knowledge on this subject
interesting information

xploder

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Why did you have to create a new thread on the same topic?

i would apreciate your cretique of my thread my friend
as i have presented this information for peer reveiw from ats members
and you are a respected member i would expect you to point out mistakes on my part
this is part of my learning curve on ats
the link below is to a thread on how this helio lensing would work

www.abovetopsecret.com...

xploder

it turns out when i google helio lensing this is the result lol




ats is the top two results for this subject heading and my two related threads

lololololol

xploder lol

very interesting . if the stars were closer than we thought we would also have to rethink the presence of so much dark matter in the scheme of things .

There are some photos with what looks like a lens in a cloud.
Perhaps some force, as gravity is, is making this ring effect as a
ship is hiding inside the cloud.
Thus a gravity as the ship is in station behind the cloud.
See this post:
here
And this summary:
here
The listing by me says ring but doesn't it look like a lens.
Gravity waves were going out the ship side in idle just waiting for full thrust
in the horizontal.

reply to post by XPLodER


Perhaps I have just misunderstood what light means but I always thought it was just the rate of vibration. At one end of the spectrum molecules and atoms move faster than at the other end thus when they hit your eyes and travel to your brain we interpretate that to mean shapes and colours ie light and dark.

Originally posted by keldas
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Perhaps I have just misunderstood what light means but I always thought it was just the rate of vibration. At one end of the spectrum molecules and atoms move faster than at the other end thus when they hit your eyes and travel to your brain we interpretate that to mean shapes and colours ie light and dark.

edit on 10-10-2010 by keldas because: (no reason given)

The eye to brain response is an interesting area.
I am particularly interested in the eye response.
If the theory of lights nature being of a sound wave then the receptor might
behold a vibration.