Einstein can be forgiven for getting it wrong – his successors didn't do any better.

The only thing that could possibly justify scientists’ expanding universe/inflating space theory otherwise known as the ‘Big Bang’, is the assumption that light must always travel in a straight line. Only by employing this to me unbelievable deduction, can the universe accommodate the distance light has

Last year was the 100th year anniversary of discovering that light can be curved by gravity. So if light curves on it’s way to us, it must necessarily cover a greater distance than if it traverses the distance directly. It's a bit easier for a dunce like me to imagine the light from stars bending suddenly and then the distance covered will be equal to two sides of a triangle of distances, light's

There is little point in attempting to define a gravitational constant since as far as gravitational bodies are concerned there is not necessarily any relationship between distance travelled and gravitational effects. They are random. Because of this, the route taken by light to reach us cannot be determined. It will encompass a variety of gravitational effects curving light in every possible direction. Even an object's position in space is similarly indeterminable. The slightest deflection or deviation caused by gravitational bending of a spacial object's light will ‘blind’ us to its

Light from distant objects bends 'hither and thither' in the enormity of space on its journey to us due to its relatively close encounters with large gravitational forces. A longer journey caused in this way is longer than its

Using red shift and luminescence has led us to conclude that light’s 'roundabout' journey to us from the stars shows us something quite different. Light is telling us it's had a long, hard, variegated route through the heavens and scientists are telling us that the universe is expanding so that this dubiously tells us the

We have concluded that space is expanding and light travels faster than light to accommodate some very irrational thinking. Surely, it's not space that bends it's the light light passing through it that does so?

Before it's time for me to get my usual 10 hours' sleep, let me leave you with another thought to keep you awake. When light or for that matter any object travels from one point to another indirectly, it not only travels further than going straight there, it also (assuming it travels at a constant speed), takes more time to reach its destination! So light that gets deflected on it's way here ages more than than it should as well as arriving later in time.

Light from two stars which are actually equidistant can therefore seem to us to have different ages and different radial distances dependent on the vagaries of their respective routes. How much do we know about space? Please give me a clue. Am I being stupid?

Surely it’s time to re-write the textbooks! Can someone with half a brain please tell me what is wrong with this argument? Good night!

The only thing that could possibly justify scientists’ expanding universe/inflating space theory otherwise known as the ‘Big Bang’, is the assumption that light must always travel in a straight line. Only by employing this to me unbelievable deduction, can the universe accommodate the distance light has

__actually__travelled from distant objects to reach us. We have assumed that the total distance__travelled__is its__actual__radial distance!Last year was the 100th year anniversary of discovering that light can be curved by gravity. So if light curves on it’s way to us, it must necessarily cover a greater distance than if it traverses the distance directly. It's a bit easier for a dunce like me to imagine the light from stars bending suddenly and then the distance covered will be equal to two sides of a triangle of distances, light's

__actual__course. Their sum will always be greater than the direct route, the third side of the triangle. An object's radial distance will nearly always be less than its distance travelled to us.There is little point in attempting to define a gravitational constant since as far as gravitational bodies are concerned there is not necessarily any relationship between distance travelled and gravitational effects. They are random. Because of this, the route taken by light to reach us cannot be determined. It will encompass a variety of gravitational effects curving light in every possible direction. Even an object's position in space is similarly indeterminable. The slightest deflection or deviation caused by gravitational bending of a spacial object's light will ‘blind’ us to its

__actual__position and its__actual__distance.Light from distant objects bends 'hither and thither' in the enormity of space on its journey to us due to its relatively close encounters with large gravitational forces. A longer journey caused in this way is longer than its

__radial__distance from us and causes light to lose more energy than it will expend on a direct route; this can be measured by luminescence or red shift. However, we have wrongly misinterpreted these measurements as recessional velocity. Why the Doppler Effect which works for sound waves should have been assumed to also act for light is beyond me but I'm as thick as two short planks anyway.Using red shift and luminescence has led us to conclude that light’s 'roundabout' journey to us from the stars shows us something quite different. Light is telling us it's had a long, hard, variegated route through the heavens and scientists are telling us that the universe is expanding so that this dubiously tells us the

__'radial'__distance of the light's source. Funny, I thought we were meant to believe it's the object's velocity away from us.We have concluded that space is expanding and light travels faster than light to accommodate some very irrational thinking. Surely, it's not space that bends it's the light light passing through it that does so?

Before it's time for me to get my usual 10 hours' sleep, let me leave you with another thought to keep you awake. When light or for that matter any object travels from one point to another indirectly, it not only travels further than going straight there, it also (assuming it travels at a constant speed), takes more time to reach its destination! So light that gets deflected on it's way here ages more than than it should as well as arriving later in time.

Light from two stars which are actually equidistant can therefore seem to us to have different ages and different radial distances dependent on the vagaries of their respective routes. How much do we know about space? Please give me a clue. Am I being stupid?

Surely it’s time to re-write the textbooks! Can someone with half a brain please tell me what is wrong with this argument? Good night!

Last edited: