Tuesday, January 17, 2012

What's this rubbish of multi-universes... life on Mars? Let's get real!

Good day!

There are so many different directions to go with Space and I had been wondering which.  Oh, no.  I wasn't meaning planetary exploration, although I love the idea.  That is probably one of the reasons for studying Astrophysics in the first place.  Although simply looking at NASA's projections of flight paths, launch dates, arrivals and the like it seems like it will be sometime before any serious considerations to planetary destinations will be attempted.

But that does lead one to think about why?  For some odd reason people keep going on about life on Mars.  an unfortunate bunch of misled people.  The answer is plainly no.  Any freshman general studies astronomy course, yes 101, which covers rudimentary planetary studies, provides the answer why.  Oh, really, if it must be spelled out, sure.  Mars does not have the mass to hold an atmosphere anything like ours to sustain anything resembling remotely characteristic to any carbon based life form on Earth.  Any carbon structures have to have been formed elsewhere, although there is a possibility of formation under the surface.  The difference in mass is significant enough to show markedly if there was a catastrophic reduction leaving Mars as we can now see it.

Since I am writing about such obvious hoaxes it seems to be an imperative to nip this idea of multiple universes in the bud.  No one in their right mind can serious believes in such things.  Sure it's fun to daydream about such things and read books about what could have happened if only if... and other sorts of forms of entertainment.  But as science it isn't worth considering since there is nothing that actually suggests that there are more than the one timeline.  A time line that only goes in one direction I should add.

Sure my hypothesis is that what we preserve is set in a forth dimensional space which may or may not be set in a fifth dimensional space.  The proof is not easily verified and the mathematics and higher reasoning of physics is potential extremely dangerous with the prevalence of the BBT.  A theory that's principle has to do with everything blowing up!  Bigger and bigger bombs is all it is really good for.  Mind you I'm not against national security by any stretch of the imagination!  God bless all those who have, do, and will put their lives to that task.  I pray for them and their family and friends regularly.  The perceived threat that Hitler had developed long range rockets and a possible fission program fueled a reaction here in the United States which culminated the creation of the nuclear technology.  I am not looking for a debate about the past, but as a voice of warning what may happen if the ignorance that BBT is perpetuating.

Therefore I will only write of these things in broad generalizations.  What does seem important has to do with the relationships of Gravity, Space, and Matter.  I had mentioned the transposition of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.  Is this a Relativistic concept or perhaps an indicator?  For me it introduced the idea of multiple constructions of Space.  Another clue has to do with the idea of relating 'Energy' spatially.  In simple geometry everyone is told how to find the circumference of a circle, not just one, but all of them.  Likewise the one of all of Einstein's equations is similar in appearance.  Therefore the quarry: of how far can Relativity be pushed?  So supposing that Einstein's self confessed lack as a mathematician and that no one had enough insight to his ideas that the mathematical representations maybe a little askew in some respects.

Of course I know that the variables and constants are not directly related and to that sort of remark I remember that the circle is static and if the radius is a vector, that is if the circle becomes larger, does that mean if the energy increases without changes to the matter that is making up the mass does the mass still increase, or is it possible that the second of light changes?  Now if I remember right there were such experiments carried out and the mass did change.  Although I never scrutinized these tests therefore I don't recall, I can concede that.  It makes it feasible to demonstrate that if you can rectify Euclidean geometry with non-Euclidean then you can think of the properties of an atom, or nucleus as a sphere as you might take an asteroid, planet, or star as a sphere.  This really isn't outside of the box as far as constructions goes.  However what does happen, if the previous experiments have occurred to the conclusion that "c" does not change with the an increase of Energy however the radius of the sphere does as the mass increases when the matter does not change i.e. matter nor mass is expended it is induced from/by an outside source.

Therefore the observed motion of the Universe indicates an exterior source.  Not several, whether thousands or trillion, the uniformity is extreme and very predictable.  Even one less of infinity would markedly disrupt this finely tuned Universe and an infinite amount would create a standing pattern in which 'time' would stand still.


Stephen A. Halkovic III

No comments:

Post a Comment