The ramblings of an old man or a new way of looking at the Big Bang?

Apr 30, 2020
5
0
30
If we continue to believe in the Big Bang theory after reading what I have to say below, we will be wasting the short space of time left for us to stop our path of self-destruction.

Homo sapiens, whom one BBC anthology researcher described recently as always having been quite ‘mad’, have inflicted greed and exploitation on everything that existed since we emerged from Africa. We subsumed our predecessors, the Neanderthals and Denisovans who lived gentler, more sustainable lives on the planet for a much longer period of time than us.

We have consistently treated one another and the Earth disrespectfully in our interminable search for wealth and power. As nations, we have pillaged less-developed communities enslaving their long-term residents to satisfy our own insatiable needs.

‘Fake news ‘about the Cosmos is constantly weaved in a search for scientific status. I hope to demonstrate to you that we possess no ‘actual’ knowledge at all about the Universe; we live our lives only on the basis of our ‘perceptions’. We need to stop draining our resources on panaceas of hope by dreams of ‘escaping to new far off planets’ and concentrate on the here and now.

Introduction

From philosophy.com on Plato, “The real is divided into two parts: first the physical world accessible to the senses, the real immediate source of error and illusion, the other the intelligible world accessible to reason alone, of ideas and truth. Combining reality and truth, Plato condemns the world of sense. The horse is not the truth, only the idea of a horse is true. Thus, the “Cave” means the material world, whose wise-philosopher has to divert to the world of ideas. Access to the Truth through contemplation, the exercise is to make use of his reason.”
The great scientist Einstein was quoted as saying that “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination”, and “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
Taking Einstein at his word therefore and assuming also that Plato was wise, I plan only to visualise the ‘truth’ about the Cosmos in order to rationalise my way out of Plato’s ‘cave’. The truth is actually quite inaccessible; I’ll explain why!

Trigonometry can only provide ratios and relative associations between variables. Without knowing at least one actual value, others cannot be deduced. Put simply, you need to know the values of two angles of a triangle to establish the third. Knowing all three angles does not provide its area. The lengths of two sides of a triangle will not provide the length of its third side, its angles or its area.

The Big Bang Theory has been fabricated on the basis of apparent galactic relationships. At various times, associations have been made between the red shift of light, the speed of recession of its source from an observer and the distance of the source emitting light. These claims have been used to support the theory that the Universe or (space) is accelerating outwards. By ‘inverse extrapolation’, we have then dated the Universe’s genesis!

If this isn’t being stuck in Plato’s ‘cave’, what is? I will use only basic mathematics to clarify a subject which has become shrouded in obscure scientific theorems. I hope this paper proves to be a ‘simple’ way to change our understanding of the Universe we are constantly searching for which will reshape physics towards the ‘rational’ rather than the ‘sensational’.

Abstract
Copernican Heliocentrism is the name given to the astronomical model developed by Nicolaus Copernicus and published in 1543. This positioned the Sun near the centre of the Universe, motionless, with Earth and the other planets orbiting around it in circular paths.

Following that view, a model of the Universe as a static state of equilibrium prevailed until about 100 years ago when widely attributable to Edwin Hubble, the notion of the universe expanding at a calculable rate was derived from a set of general relativity equations produced in 1922 and now known as the Friedmann equations. These showed that the universe ‘might’ expand, and presented the expansion speed if this was the case. Georges Lemaître, a Catholic Priest stated in a 1927 article that the universe ‘might’ be expanding, observing the proportionality between recessional velocity of and distance to, distant bodies.

Redshift
With important and encouraging work by Hubble, it was ‘established’ that there was a linear relationship between redshift and distance. From this, it was assumed that the distance of an object from Earth could be by measured by light’s red shift. I quote from Wikipedia:

“In physics, redshift is a phenomenon where electromagnetic radiation (such as light) from an object undergoes an increase in wavelength. Whether or not the radiation is visible, "redshift" means an increase in wavelength, equivalent to a decrease in wave frequency and photon energy in accordance with the wave and quantum theories of light.

There are three ‘stated’ causes of redshifts in astronomy and cosmology:
Objects move apart (or closer together) in space. This is an example of the
Doppler Effect.
Space itself expanding, causing objects to become separated without changing their positions in space. This is known as cosmological redshift. All sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth, known as Hubble's Law.”
Gravitational red shift which is a relativistic effect observed due to strong gravitational fields which distort space time and exert a force on light and other particles.
“Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law, is the observation in
physical cosmology that:
Objects observed in
deep space—extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more—are found to have a redshift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth;
This
Doppler shift-measured velocity of various galaxies receding from the Earth is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.
Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the
expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model. The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.”
I hope to demonstrate that red shift only gives the appearance that objects accelerate as they move apart in space or constantly accelerate away from Earth. Rather illogically, Maria Tenning in ‘Sky and Telescope’, 2014 deduces one possibility from another.

“The age of the universe is approximately 13.77 billion years. This age is calculated by measuring the distances and radial velocities of other galaxies, most of which are flying away from our own at speeds proportional to their distances. Using the current expansion rate of the universe, we can imagine “rewinding” the universe to the point where everything was contained in a singularity, and calculate how much time must have passed between that moment (the Big Bang) and the present.”

From the assumption that red shift measurements have a linear relationship with an object’s distance, the Doppler Effect is also supposed to associate red shift with recessional velocity. How can red shift be indicative of two variables; distance and velocity without the use of time?

Discussion
It was soon recognised that to support the exponentially expanding Universe theory, light would obviously need a huge amount of energy. This source was theorised and named the ‘Boson’ particle after its ‘inventor’. It is described as possessing enormous mass compared to other sub-atomic particles. Despite the construction of the Hadron Collider at Cern and subsequent research over many years, the ‘Boson’ particle remains theoretical although its ‘discovery’ merited a Nobel Prize. A huge amount of mathematical theory, not to mention the cost of over $100 billion has been expended in order to legitimise the theory. Refreshingly, a ‘ray of light’ has recently appeared in ‘live.science.com’:

‘A crisis in physics may have just gotten deeper. By looking at how the light from distant bright objects is bent, researchers have increased the discrepancy between different methods for calculating the expansion rate of the universe.
"The measurements are consistent with indicating a crisis in cosmology," Geoff Chih-Fan Chen, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, said here during a news briefing on Wednesday (Jan. 8) at the 235th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Honolulu’.

From Wikipedia:
‘For galaxies more distant than the Local Group and the nearby Virgo Cluster, but within a thousand megaparsecs or so, the redshift is approximately proportional to the galaxy's distance. This correlation was first observed by Edwin Hubble and has come to be known as Hubble's law. Vesto Slipher was the first to discover galactic redshifts, in about the year 1912; while Hubble correlated Slipher's measurements with distances he measured by other means to formulate his Law. In the widely accepted cosmological model based on general relativity, redshift is mainly a result of the expansion of space: this means that the farther away a galaxy is from us, the more the space has expanded in the time since the light left that galaxy, so the more the light has been stretched, the more redshifted the light is, and so the faster it appears to be moving away from us. Hubble's law follows in part from the Copernican principle. Because it is usually not known how luminous objects are, measuring the redshift is easier than more direct distance measurements, so redshift is sometimes in practice converted to a crude distance measurement using Hubble's law.’

I will demonstrate why red shift gives an observer only an apparent measure of an object’s radial distance from a source. I believe It is an indication of the actual distance light has taken en route to an observer!

From the website ‘Cosmos’:
“Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation will lengthen as it climbs out of a gravitational well. Photons must expend energy to escape, but at the same time must always travel at the speed of light, so this energy must be lost through a change of frequency rather than a change in speed. If the energy of the photon decreases, the frequency also decreases. This corresponds to an increase in the wavelength of the photon, or a shift to the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum – hence the name: gravitational redshift. This effect was confirmed in laboratory experiments conducted in the 1960s………For radiation emitted in a strong gravitational field, such as from the surface of a neutron star or close to the event horizon of a black hole, the gravitational redshift can be very large…………….”
Ethan Siegel (Twitter) wrote:
“What happens to light when it passes near a large mass? Does it simply continue in a straight line, undeflected from its original path? Does it experience a force owing to the gravitational effects of the matter nearby? And if so, what is the magnitude of the force it experiences?
“These questions cut to the very heart of how gravity works. This year, 2019, marks the 100th anniversary of General Relativity's confirmation. Two independent teams undertook a successful expedition to measure the positions of stars near the limb of the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919. Through the highest-quality observations that technology permitted at the time, they determined whether that distant starlight was bent by the Sun's gravity, and by how much. It was a result that shocked many, but Einstein already knew what the answer would be.”

When red shift was becoming ‘cast in stone’ 100 years ago as a measure of an object’s distance and also rather unrealistically its recessional speed, why wasn’t more attention paid to the fact that red shift can result from gravitational effects and background cosmic radiation?
Red shift is now being used as a constant to deduce two interdependent variables, speed of recession and distance from Earth.
I agree that red shift measures something. Rob Jeffries’ made a most interesting point in the online site, “@Physics” which rules out the use of parallax to measure huge distances. This casts great doubt on the use of parallax to vindicate the current use of red shift to do so.
“The realms of applicability for redshift (as an indirect distance indicator that must be calibrated through the Hubble parameter) and parallax, which can only be applied to relatively nearby stars, do not overlap. Parallax is a geometric method, limited only by the precision with which the parallax can be measured. At present it is limited to distances of hundreds of light years, though the Gaia astrometry satellite will soon extend this to thousands of light years.
Redshift as a (reliable) distance indicator can only be used well into the "Hubble flow", so that individual Galactic peculiar velocities become unimportant compared with the universal expansion. In practice this means tens of millions of lightyears at least. The technique cannot be used at all on local group galaxies or stars in our galaxy, since their motions are not due to the expansion of the universe.
You are correct that parallax is more accurate, but current levels of measurement precision are too low to extend the technique to distant galaxies.
One way of looking at this is to ask what parallax baseline would be needed to measure a parallax at 100 million light years with current measurement technology.
Gaia can measure stellar positions to about 10 microarcseconds. The parallax at 100 Mlyr is about 0.033b0.033b microarcseconds, where bb is the parallax baseline in astronomical units (the Earth-Sun distance). To get a parallax measurement precise to 10% would require a baseline of b∼3000b∼3000 au - i.e. larger than the solar system.”

I’m sure that by now you are aware that I have been discriminating between a celestial object’s apparent and actual position and between its apparent radial distance and its actual radial distance. We are attempting to deduce reality from apparent ‘information’ and not actual information. What we really need to do is to interpret the information that red shift provides in totally different manner.
A touch of philosophy
An interval of time will always separate our sensual perceptions from the ‘truth’ of the ‘intelligible’ world. Because information by way of light or radio waves is conveyed at only 186,300 miles per second (the speed of light), on Earth only the tiniest interval of time separates our ‘sensing’ an event from the actual event. With greatly increased distances, the time interval becomes significant. For instance, if the sun ‘went out’, our ‘senses’ wouldn’t perceive that event until 8 minutes later when darkness would descend on us.
Consider another example; a bat creates high pitched sounds and can only ‘sense’ a flying insect from the sounds echoing back from it. Information conveyed by sound in air travels at the relatively slow speed of about 760 mph, so a bat’s apparent sense’ of where an insect is could be about half a second ‘out of date’ with its actual position. The bat’s brain therefore has to ‘imagine’ its owner’s ‘flight path’ and set a route for its owner to follow taking into account the interval between it emitting a sound and hearing its echo. By making continuous adjustments, the bat's flight intersects with that of the insect. Metaphorically, the ‘reason’ or ‘idea’ of the bat’s brain has turned the ‘illusion’ of its ‘sense’ into ‘truth’.
You may think these scenarios rather tedious but please humour me for the time being. Their importance will soon become clear to you.
Imagine you are wearing a mask, goggles and wetsuit and sitting comfortably in the bottom of a large tank of water looking upwards at a torch which is shining down on you. Its light has passed into the water at an angle to its surface. This is termed the angle of incidence. Because of the refraction of the beam of light, it will bend downwards as it enters the water and the torch will thus appear to be higher than its actual position. Alternatively, before you next have a bath, poke a bamboo cane into the bathwater. The stick will appear to bend upwards as it passes through the surface of the water..
We know that the stick only appears to have bent. Light reflected from the stick you poked into the bath has bent downwards as it leaves the water into the much less dense air, giving you the idea that the stick has bent upwards. In each example, we have two ‘states’ to think about concerning the apparent stick and the actual stick and the apparent torch and the actual torch.

Because of light’s refraction caused by a change in density of the medium, the actual distance light travels to reach your eyes from either the farthest point of the stick immersed in water or the torch shining down to a submerged you, will be significantly greater than if there was no water involved! That would be the actual distance travelled in each case.
When light is bent en route to your eyes, its first ‘leg’ of the journey, path A is from the end of the stick to the surface of the water and the second ‘leg’ of its journey, Path B is from the surface of the water to your eyes. These two separate ‘legs’ of the journey can be represented by two sides of a triangle, A and B. (A + B) will be the actual distance the light will travel to an observer. C, the third side of the triangle, will represent the path light would follow directly to your eyes from the end of the stick if there was no water in the bath to refract it. A + B will always be greater than C. (A + B) is the apparent distance of an object from your eyes if measured by red shift when it is actually a measure of the total distance covered. Following any deviation, the distance travelled indirectly to an observer will always be greater than the actual distance it would travel without an intervening deviation.
Without knowing accurately exactly how much the water has bent the light you don’t really know where the far end of the ‘bent’ stick actually is! If there was a nice trout in a pond, you were hungry and had a spear in your hand, you would have to guess where to aim knowing it would be some distance below where it appeared to be and hope for good luck.
As I explained earlier, when light from a star reaches our atmosphere, it will be refracted downwards in exactly the same way as when it hit the surface of the water in the imaginary tank of water. As light from a star hits Earth’s atmosphere, it will be bent by refraction. Since our atmosphere is denser than the vacuum of space, when light gets bent it loses energy and this will increase its light’s red shift.
As starlight passes through successive layers of Earth’s atmosphere, each one a bit denser than the one before it, it will be refracted more and more. Its path through the atmosphere will be bent. If the medium through which light passes changes in density, it will cause light to bend successively.















The use of parallax to measure objects’ separation distances is based on their apparent positions in the sky and not their actual positions. Since the light to measure parallax will be ‘identical’ to the light used to measure red shift, they can hardly be used to provide checks on each other. Neither will be the ‘truth’.
Sitting in a tank of water and looking upwards, you don’t know the actual position of the torch. You will only have a rough idea of where it is. Similarly, when you look upwards from the surface of the Earth at a star, you won’t actually know for certain where it actually is. What’s more, you won’t know its actual distance. You will know fairly accurately however, how far its light has travelled to reach you because you can measure its red shift. This will indicate how much energy it has expended en route.
Incidentally, because of atmospheric refraction, stars appear to group themselves more towards the centre of the night sky. They are actually much more spread out!
It’s hard to imagine the possibility that light reaching Earth from any object which is billions of light years away can possibly reach us without encountering some gravitational bodies en route such as stars, galaxies and black holes. We have no way of knowing how many encounters light from a particular star will have made on its way to us. Thus we have no idea of how many gravitational deflections will have been incurred on its path.
Light from every luminous body we can see in the sky will have had its journey length increased by an unknown amount. Each deviation will not only increase light’s distance travelled to reach us but will have an exponential effect on its overall journey. Put simply, successive increments of deviation (angle of deviation) will result in larger and larger distances light must travel to reach any particular radial distance from its source.
Let me describe the term exponential in relation to global warming. Quite unbelievably, we have been assuming until quite recently that the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere would increase linearly with time. However, this avoids other considerations. For instance, when previously ice-covered and reflective surfaces started to melt, they were exposed to the sun adding to the temperature of the Earth which then caused more ice to melt. There are many other examples which indicate an exponential effect in response to a stimulus, rather than a linear response.
When gravity causes deviations in light’s route to Earth, its effect is not linear, it is exponential. Any deviation of light caused by light encountering a gravitational body will produce an exponentially greater increase in the actual distance it will travel for any given radial distance from its source. Red shift measurements have been assumed to measure objects’ radial (actual) distance from an observer. Attempts have been made to account for the effect of background cosmic gravitation on light. This has received far greater emphasis than it merits at the cost of our understanding what red shift really tells us.
Snell’s work in the 16th century demonstrated that the angle of incidence of light passing from one medium to another such as space to air or from air to water is directly proportional to its wavelength and thus its red shift. I think you will now understand why some of the assumptions made about the Universe 100 years ago looking upwards through the atmosphere would have been subject to significant error.
An observer on Earth viewing two separate objects will know that refraction effects caused by our atmosphere will mean that viewed simultaneously they will appear to be closer together than they actually are. Below is a drawing from quora.com which illustrates the point.

This throws doubt on the conclusions made by early astronomers. One hundred years ago, when the Big Bang Theory was in its infancy, they would have been aware of the effects of refraction and would have endeavoured to obviate these from their calculations by trying as far as possible to focus on objects only when they were directly overhead. The angle of incidence of the light with Earth’s atmosphere would then be as small as possible and would therefore cause the least refraction. However, there are only so many stars and galaxies that can be simultaneously observed in this way. In any case, their apparent positions would also be used to measure parallax so one incorrect assumption would merely cause another.
Explaining the problem
There are distinct similarities between the behaviour of light when it travels through a medium such as Earth’s atmosphere or water and when it travels through space. In the latter instance, light is not refracted because in the main, the density of space is fairly constant; this is generalised as cosmic radiation and I believe the Hubble Constant was initially devised to account for this in its calculations. This doesn’t necessarily bend light much at all since background radiation is homogeneous and evenly effective from every direction.
However, as demonstrated in 1919, light travelling from A to any point B on a radius C from point A would be bent when passing close to a large gravitational body. Such a deviation{s} would not only lengthen the actual distance light would travel to an observer, it would also be giving a false radial distance from its source; it would lengthen the time taken on the journey. Any increase in light’s journey distance and time would impose an increased duration of exposure to not only energy loss caused by the Hubble Constant but also energy losses caused by the proximity of gravitational bodies en route. I would like to reiterate the point I made earlier that light gains energy when it is pulled towards a gravitational body and loses it when pulling out of one. The net loss may be very small but will be cumulative nevertheless.
On 9th January 2020, the following was part of an article published by “Livescience.com”:
“A crisis in physics may have just gotten deeper. By looking at how the light from distant bright objects is bent, researchers have increased the discrepancy between different methods for calculating the expansion rate of the universe.
"The measurements are consistent with indicating a crisis in cosmology," Geoff Chih-Fan Chen, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, said here during a news briefing on Wednesday (Jan. 8) at the 235th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Honolulu.”

Getting down to brass tacks
I have elaborated on what happens to light as it passes through Earth’s atmosphere only as an analogy in order to demonstrate what happens to light as it travels to us from billions of light years away. I have emphasised how the tiniest gravitational effect can magnify with distance light travels. If light from a star, galaxy or other luminous body actually 100 billion light years away passed close enough to a gravitational body (for example a black hole) and was deflected by gravity early in its journey by only 1sec0 (1/3600 of one degree), and continued towards Earth without any further impediments, its actual position would be laterally about 480,000 light years from its apparent position. That’s an error of about 20 times the width of our own galaxy. Red shift would also indicate an apparently greater radial distance than that of the observer.
This shows that we cannot determine very much at all about the Universe. We have no means of knowing how many deflections light will undergo on any journey it makes and will therefore have no idea of any objects’ distance or place of origin in the sky. Any information carried to us by light originating from sources billions of light years away ago would be well ‘past its sell-by date’. Perhaps you will now share my frustration with a scientific community which continually speaks about events in the Universe which happened long ago as ‘taking place’ or describes them in the ‘present tense’. We don’t have a clue of what is currently happening in the Universe. We can only ‘reason’.
I have inserted above a rather crude diagram to illustrate the enigma we must overcome. Two stars occupy different points on the circumference of a ‘circle’ with a common radius of 100 billion light years (bly) from an observer. As you will see light from star 1 quite extraordinarily meets up with no gravitational impediments at all on its journey to you at the centre of the ‘circle’ indicated by an eye. You measure the red shift of its light which tells you that its distance is 100 bly.
You do the same for star 2. Light from this star has a red shift indicating it is 116 bly distant. Their respective luminosities tell you the same story. Why wouldn’t they? The same light would have been used to obtain them! A colleague who knows a lot about how stars and suchlike might tell you that there is no way that one of these stars could possibly be 16 bly older than the other because they were born in the same cosmic era. He adds that their luminosity shouldn’t be different either for that kind of star so it must be accelerating away. Now you are in a fix! Do you assume therefore that he is right and space is expanding in an accelerating fashion? Otherwise how can you fit 116 bly into the space of only 100 Bly?
I have a further metaphorical illustration of how reaching conclusions with insufficient information can be ‘fatal’. Assume that a pilot is asked as part of an examination to fly between two set map points A and B and measure as accurately as possible the distance between them. It’s actually 100 miles but only his instructor knows that. The pilot assumes from his records that he can maintain his aircraft’s airspeed at 100 miles an hour (1.7 miles a minute) and also that flying at that speed its engine will consume 1 gallon of fuel a minute. It seems therefore a simple thing for him to fly from point A to point B as directly as possible, time the journey and by simple arithmetic calculate the distance separating them.
However, when he presents his answer to his examiner as 150 miles and failed miserably did he belatedly consider how many deviations may have been caused by the wind on his journey? Was his altitude constant? Variations in these and even their presence however small, would increases the aircraft’s actual distance travelled, fuel consumed and time taken on the journey. If he relied only on his aircraft’s fuel consumption (energy loss) to calculate the radial distance, he would be simulating how armed only with red shift measurements we assume radial distances. Actual distance covered would have been translated as actual radial distance. Let’s hope he had enough fuel left over to land successfully!
The pilot will have had no precise knowledge of the strengths and directions of varying winds en route and how these affected his aircraft’s fuel consumption and thus apparent radial distance. Scientists also appear to have largely overlooked that light reaching us from celestial bodies will have encountered an inestimable number of gravitational bodies en route which will have affected not only its total distance travelled, but also its red shift. The only concession they appear to have made is to propose a correction by means of the Hubble Constant.
To further complicate the issue, Star 2 will have travelled a greater actual distance and taken more time to arrive than Star 1. Its luminosity and red shift will not only give a false apparent distance but a false apparent source direction. Theoretically, various successive deviations could force light from stars equidistant from Earth to follow extremely complicated and different routes of all shapes.
Final Conclusions
  • Space is neither curved nor expanding.
  • Light is curved by gravity.
  • Red shift is a measurement of energy lost by light en route from its source.
  • Light will lose energy due to changes in its medium.
  • Mediums include both encounters with gravitational bodies sufficiently close enough to affect its direction and also that due to background cosmic radiation (gravitational red shift).
  • A change in light’s direction incurs an increase in journey distance and time.
  • The total length of light’s journey to an observer will rise exponentially in relation to the number and size of gravitational encounters and the length of time it is exposed to background radiation.
  • Because the after-effects of gravitational encounters are exponential, red shift measurements will also increase exponentially.
  • An exponential increase in distance creates an exponential increase in energy loss and an exponential increase in journey time.
  • An exponential increase in journey time will cause an exponential increase in exposure time to both possible encounters with gravitational bodies and constant exposure to background radiation.
  • Any of these effects will exponentially increase the apparent increase in an object’s radial distance from an observer.
  • When light’s total distance travelled is increased, further opportunities of encountering gravitational bodies will occur.
  • An observer has only the current means of measuring anything at all about the true nature of the Universe. It is red shift.
  • This will relate to the total distance covered by light from its source. However, an observer has no means of determining an object’s actual position. This will be distorted by the overall gravitational ‘bending’ of light on its journey to an observer.
  • The direction light appears to come from (the image sighted) is not necessarily where an object is in the Universe. We will never know that since we have no history of its light’s encounters en route.
  • An observer has no knowledge of what may have happened to light from anywhere in the Universe during the time light has taken to reach him.
  • Light from two objects which are actually equidistant from Earth but laterally separated by considerable distance could take different paths to reach a common observer.
  • Light from the same source can take different routes to a common observer. Their respective distances covered en route would differ. Their red shift measurements would differ. Their positions in the sky could differ. An observer could wrongly ‘ascertain’ as a result of his observations that one was further distant than the other because it had accelerated faster and/or because space was expanding. An observer could be looking simultaneously at two slightly different views of the same object due to light setting out from it in two different directions. Twins?
  • Space is not curved. ‘There are no gravitational waves’. Gravitational effects can be varied in their intensity and direction whether curved, helical, spiral. straight, elliptical, circular etc. Light will be affected accordingly and its path will be modified to achieve equilibrium. These lengthened journeys will be longer and take more time, falsely interpreted as evidence of ‘space expansion and acceleration’.
  • Exponential effects have been largely the cause of the Big Bang theory, ‘space expansion’ and the ‘Boson Particle’. The apparent has been inferred as the actual.
There is absolutely no way that red shift can be related to anything but the total actual distance covered by light from an object in space to an observer. This will include a relatively small Hubble Constant to account for gravitational red shift. By determining the amount of red shift caused by relatively close stellar objects, it should be possible to calculate a correction factor for much greater distances. However, despite being able to then interpret net red shift as a measure of total distance covered by light from a distant source, the number of deviations caused by gravity en route, its actual position and its actual radial distance from an observer will remain unknown. Our place in the Universe relative to everything there is in it will remain an illusion.
Basic trigonometry will demonstrate that any deflection of light however great or infinitesimally small will have an exponential effect on the actual distance it will have to cover to reach any prescribed radius from its source. Subsequent deviations however small will not ‘balance out, detract from or otherwise affect the total distance covered to an observer. Consecutive variations in light’s direction can cause light’s route to be fashioned in many different ways; spirals, ellipses etc. These journeys may be complex or simple and impossible to either premeditate or calculate.
There are no easy answers to our conundrums! Returning to the analogy of my pilot, his examiner might have asked him whether he took any other factors into account on his journey such as the wind. The examiner might have explained that without the pilot being aware of the fact, he had encountered cross winds and head winds en route without knowing either their strength or direction. These effectively lengthened his journey by 50 miles since his course would have constituted a series of curves and not therefore, a straight line. This puts him in the position we find ourselves in now when we attempt to use the fuel consumption (red shift) of light travelling at a constant speed of 186,300 miles per hour from a distant star to measure its actual distance from us and its actual position.
Some afterthoughts
It’s easy to see in retrospect how scientists have reached the conclusion that space and the Universe are expanding. This was largely made possible because of the initial supposition 100 years ago that the Doppler effect (which implied that the recessional velocity of an object in outer space could be measured by the wavelength of sound emanating from it), could be applied to the wavelength of light emanating from objects in space (the amount of red shift). This denied the fact that so far we have found no justification that light can accelerate to over 186,300 miles per second!
It was established in 1919 that gravity could bend light so the Hubble Constant was established which attempted to introduce a correction factor to distances measured by red shift to take into account light’s loss of energy due to gravitational effects. Telescopes weren’t nearly as sophisticated and powerful as they are now and as objects at incredible distances came into our view, we were able to measure their apparent distances by red shift. In fact, ‘Today, in the context of general relativity, velocity between distant objects depends on the choice of coordinates used and therefore, the red shift can equally be described as a Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) due to the expanding space, or some combination of the two.’ (Wikipedia)
Unfortunately for the protagonists of the Big Bang theory, these became more and more disproportionate to the apparent distances measured by other means even after taking the Hubble Constant into account. In my opinion, they incorrectly theorised that recessional rates were increasing with distance at an exponential (accelerating) rate. The rest is history.
We need to cease using measurements of light’s red shift for any reason other than its total loss of energy en route to Earth. The Hubble Constant is a sensible means to apply a uniform correction factor due to the general gravitational force present in ex-galactic space. This is unlikely to cause very much of a deflection (bending) of light since gravity decreases with the square of its distance from a mass and there is a lot more space than matter in the Universe. More importantly as I explained in my book, I believe that the Universe is infinite so any small gravitational forces explained under the heading ‘gravitational constant’ are likely to cancel one another out.
Since light can gain and then lose energy when being attracted towards gravitational bodies it passes close to and subsequently lose energy when escaping from them, it seems that most of the problems reside in the fact that they do get bent in the process and that consumes time and distance in the process.
However, we are still left with an intangible problem for scientists to apply their wits to. We know that light can be affected when it passes close to large gravitational bodies including black holes but how can we legislate for the amounts of deviation these cause? Currently, we have no means of accurately measuring the distances of objects outside our immediate galactic neighbourhood. Parallax will do nothing but repeat the errors made by the deflections of light en route. I think I have provided enough proof that these effects are significant.
What puzzles me is that little attention is paid to the 4th factor concerning the energy of light; its amplitude. This is fully taken into account in electricity (electron) theory; velocity, frequency, wavelength and amplitude. These all combine to establish the total energy in an electron (alternating electricity) supply. I find this factor alarmingly absent from attempts to measure the obvious loss of energy when light passes through a denser medium. Incidentally, I googled ‘has anyone actually tested light which has passed through a denser medium for red shift and got no hits. Responses only detail refraction effects but these can be ruled out by passing light through water, air or glass at either zero degrees of incidence or in the case of a prism, equal angles of incidence which cancel out refraction.
This opens up the fact that luminosity which is the measure of the amplitude of light is a far better indication that when light passes through a denser medium it loses amplitude (luminosity). This is to me the most reliable means of estimating distance; not the radial distance of an object from an observer but its total distance travelled. When we try to fit distances derived either by redshift or luminosity measurements into a ‘supposed’ radius which has itself been derived (and therefore limited) by an assumed radius of expansion of the Universe, we are being absurd.
So, let’s abandon chasing old theories and the more and more unlikely, extravagant and expensive props to support them like ‘expanding space’ and Bosons which provide the energy of expansion’. I attempted to contradict these in my book ‘Einstein’s E = mc2 unravelled – an alternative theory of the Cosmos’. I suggested that black holes are ‘recycling centres’ in which matter is converted into ‘dark energy’ with an infinite velocity. Strangely, it has recently been ‘observed’ that ‘something is leaving a black hole at 99 times the speed of light’.
I mentioned above the fact that little attention has been paid to the way in which energy can be transported by photons. Perhaps the ‘dark energy’ I construed as being derived from mass in black holes is comprised of weightless particles with both an infinite wave frequency and wave amplitude. This would certainly fit the bill of Quantum Theory. Perhaps Einstein will be laughing at us now wondering why it took us so long to derive that idea and demonstrate that all we needed to do was make ‘c’ a variable instead of a constant when everything is explained.
There most definitely is an actuality surrounding us. However, it most definitely is not currently accessible to us. Nothing we perceive is ‘actually’ there and we merely fashion explanations from our perceptions, like imagining reality by interpreting it from the ‘shadows on the walls inside Plato’s cave’. As he suggested, we have to use our ‘reason’ to find even the grains of ‘truth’.
Philosophy allows us to more easily imagine the Universe as being infinite and eternal with rules which maintain a constant entropic equilibrium. Our view of it is governed by the limitations imposed on us by the pedestrian speed of light and electromagnetism. We only have a perceived and distorted relationship with everything the Universe comprises, its planets, stars, galaxies and black holes because we cannot currently view them in actuality. Their substance is filtered through to us in unrelated scraps of information which we vainly attempt to interpolate into reality.
The Philosopher Leibnitz talked of a ‘lattice’ of monads; particles of matter so infinitesimally small they are invisible yet capable of interconnecting with everything there is and ever was in Singularity. Quantum physics describes electrons as being capable of ‘communicating’ instantly with one another by ‘entanglement’ across the farthest reaches of space.
I believe that the Universe is a stable entropic system in a state of Equilibrium and contrives always to correct aberrations; it’s doing this right now because Homo sapiens have nearly wrecked Earth’s prior stability. If there is a Universal Law of Equilibrium, then the Universe surely needs to be in direct communication with all of its parts. Quantum Theory may prove to be the way it does so. Until we can use the instantaneous relationship between particles in which time and distance are absent, we will remain unable to discover the actuality that exists. We will remain blind to it.
We need huge quantum computers to do this for us large enough to contain every bit of information in the Universe. We do have a go at it personally however puny our efforts are. I can flit instantly from year to year or event to event across a span of 80 years in my own state of Singularity.
When we accept the inevitable fact that we cannot even remotely ‘rely on our senses’ as Plato suggested, we will continue to waste valuable time and resources ‘chasing shadows’. Everything in our self-important lives particularly events which occur at great distances, is pure illusion.
An Alternative View
The calculation for determining the kinetic energy of an object in motion is e = mv2. Einstein’s equation E = mc2 treats velocity c as a constant (the speed of light) and thus m = E/c2. For any value attributed to c, it can be seen that e and m are reciprocals; E = 1/m, m = E/1. If mass becomes infinite, energy must deplete to zero. It’s assumed perhaps incorrectly, that this relationship is what ‘kick-started’ our Universe with a ‘Big Bang’. Maybe the Universe was there in the first place as I will explain later.
The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.’ There will be huge variations across the Cosmos in the ratio of energy to matter.
Currently, there are huge problems concerning how to mathematically compromise space-time Relativity with Quantum Theory. I argue that in the Cosmos, Thermodynamic space/time relativity and Quantum Theory co-exist. Let’s call it my ‘Two-State Theory’.
Each ‘state’ operates independently of the other but because the Cosmos acts as a ‘closed’ Entropic system, an overall equilibrium ratio of matter/energy must be maintained as I explained above. In my opinion, the Cosmos is the one and only example of perpetual motion and theoretically at least, the only truly ‘closed’ state there is. No other state can be said to fulfil the essential requirement of perpetual motion which is a system in constant change entirely closed to all outside influences.
Attempts to interpret the nature of our Universe have largely been made on the basis of assumptions but what we see in space is completely out of date. Scientific researchers, when describing the Cosmos often speak in the present tense which is a bit unreasonable since the events they use as references took place billions of years ago. I quote Dave Rothstein, a former graduate student and postdoctoral researcher at Cornell who used infrared and X-ray observations and theoretical computer models to study accreting black holes in our Galaxy.
‘When light is emitted from one galaxy and travels through space to another galaxy, during its trip through space it also will be subjected to forces which will bend its path causing it to have a longer wavelength and therefore causing its colour to appear more towards the red end of the spectrum. This is what leads us to see redshifted light when we look at faraway galaxies, and it is measurements of this redshift that attempts to estimate the distances to these galaxies.’
The Cosmos is better described as an infinite ‘closed system’ of energy/matter. Quantum Theory suggests that theoretically, space doesn’t exist. Time and space may just be aspects of organic entities like ourselves which have developed using only electromagnetic energy thus limiting our communication and development to the ‘pedestrian’ speed of light. Ironically, we share our existence with particles that are truly ‘free’.
Einstein was conceivably the greatest scientist of all time. He maintained that light cannot travel faster than 186,000 miles per second and he was absolutely right as far as the visible thermodynamic universe is concerned and consequently he formed the theoretical equation E = mc2 where c is the constant being the speed of light and electromagnetic forces. But, this raises questions about how the inflation of the Universe following the ‘Big Bang’ was supposedly at greater than the speed of light and is still accelerating. How else can we explain why there are celestial objects up to 45 billion light years away, older than the presumed age of the Universe, which is 13.8 billion years? I think I can!
The term ‘inflation’ has been further interpreted as space being ‘blown up’ like a balloon when objects on its surface will separate. You can test this by putting a couple of dots with a biro close together on a new balloon and then blowing it up. The dots will separate. In relation to the ‘Big Bang’, this raises the problem of where the ‘breath’ or energy came from to inflate the Universe? Mathematical calculations leave equations an enormous amount of energy short. Let’s concentrate on the difference between electro-magnetic energy and ‘free’ energy. Light is composed of photons which are its basic unit of electro-magnetic force and its speed cannot exceed the above figure. I suggest that ‘free’ energy often described as ‘dark’ energy is comprised of sub-atomic particles such as electrons with no discernible mass (some people describe them as only electrical ‘charge’). However, they can also exist as integral parts of larger material bodies such as atoms orbiting their nuclei under conditions governed by Thermodynamic Law. To do so they must forfeit their Quantum nature.
The only difference between the equation E = mv2 which is used to determine the kinetic energy of a moving body and Einstein’s E = mc2 is that v is a variant and c is a fixed figure. Whichever equation is used, energy will always be the reciprocal of mass (matter) and vice versa whatever value is ascribed to either c or v. On that basis, v becomes the most important factor and provides the means to look at the Cosmos through ‘new eyes’. Look at what happens when mass becomes infinite (∞) and energy = zero (0): v = 2√ (E/m) = 2√ (0/∞) = zero. Now see what happens when energy becomes infinite and mass zero: v = 2√ (E/m) = 2√ (∞/0) = infinity.
Something quite bizarre is revealed. When ‘free’ energy becomes infinite, so does its velocity and when ‘free’ energy becomes zero, velocity does too. Apparently, e is equivalent to v under all circumstances! Can we assume therefore that infinite velocity is the ‘natural state’ of ‘free’ energy, when it is independent of matter? What this suggests is that zero matter (or particles of matter so small that they behave as if they have no mass) travelling individually at an infinite speed can equate to an infinite amount of energy. Or, is it that their wave frequencies and amplitudes are infinite. This would explain Quantum entanglement.
If the energy of a stationary but infinite amount of mass is zero, it follows that the energy of zero mass moving at an infinite velocity must be infinite. The use of the word ‘relative’ when describing infinites may be advisable since only the Cosmos as a whole may be truly infinite. Can we look at velocity itself as a material force?
Since this point is very important, I will equivocate: In a Quantum state, effectively the mass of subatomic particles becomes equal to zero and their velocity becomes infinite. Movement = energy. There is no energy in a mass if, including its component parts and the orbiting electrons within its atoms, is totally stationary. Only the centre of a ‘black hole’ can provide the gravitational force necessary to bring everything to a halt in a thermodynamic environment where matter can instantly be converted to energy or purely movement. There is a huge amount of ‘free’ energy in zero mass (or a mass broken up into such infinitesimally small particles that individually they have no mass), moving at an infinite velocity.
Infinitesimally small particles with no mass are unaffected by gravity until they eventually sacrifice their immunity in the creation of new matter. They can either combine with one another to create matter or unite with existing matter. ‘Free’ can equally mean ‘unattached’. An eternal ‘Cosmic see-saw’ governed by the Law of Conservation of Energy continuously works to maintain Cosmic Equilibrium.
This opens the possibility that Singularity is comprised of ‘free’ energy without mass. One might argue that there are intermediate conditions where ‘free’ energy’s velocity is faster than that of light but less than infinite but my thinking is that to escape the clutches of black holes, energy must become Quantum or Singular.
The terms are not differentiable. We know that electrons are affected merely be being observed. This is a reasonable assumption since they will have been changed by an encounter with an observer; just as an observer will be changed by encountering energy! “Schrodinger’s cat”? Generalised ‘Centrist’ theories of the Cosmos are remindful of when we thought of the Earth as being the centre of the Solar System around which everything else circled. It looks as though we still do! This doesn’t surprise me when our egos continuously encourage us to believe we ‘are the centre of the Universe’, a metaphor for celebrity status sometimes used as a derogatory description of someone we dislike.
‘Centrism’ leads us to believe that there was a ‘Big Bang’ event when the contraction of all matter into an infinitesimal spot created a huge explosion. We then assumed that ‘inflation’ expanded energy into the universe around us and the matter which it gave rise to has continued to accelerate away from us at greater than the speed of light. This is meant to explain why there are celestial bodies older than our Universe.
There are much simpler explanations staring us in the face which support Einstein’s E = mv2, but not by imposing the constant ‘c’. Our view of the Cosmos/Universe is far from its reality. We co-exist with a Quantum Singularity in which space and time are indefinable and ‘free’ subatomic particles occupy it as dark energy. When these either interact with one another or with existing matter, they become at least temporarily bound with, and subject to the Thermodynamic Laws which govern the material world.
Currently, it seems difficult to mathematically compromise Quantum Theory with Thermodynamic Laws. This might become possible if we accept that ‘free’ energy can be created from matter if it is subjected to sufficient gravitational force in a ‘black hole(s)’. This would de-construct it and ‘squirt’ free energy back out at infinite speed. Bearing in mind that infinitesimal particles exist in a state of Singularity obeying Quantum Theory would mean they are all effectively everywhere at once or conversely, ‘in the same place’.
I’m suggesting that Space and Time in a Quantum/Singular state don’t exist; they are phenomena peculiar only to the ‘phony’ reality of a world of matter and governed by Thermodynamic Laws. ‘Black holes’ are ‘recycling points of transformation’. Take a look at the following which was posted on the Cern website: ‘The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator. It first started up on 10 September 2008, and remains the latest addition to CERN’s accelerator complex. The LHC consists of a 27-kilometre ring of superconducting magnets with a number of accelerating structures to boost the energy of the particles along the way.’ This Boson particle was identified as a result.
However, by artificially applying a colossal amount of electromagnetic energy to a relatively ‘closed’ system, Cern might just have created some matter in the process. Perhaps they should be celebrating how they have managed to produce a new particle instead of claiming they have discovered an existing one. So far, proof of the existence of the Boson is mainly theoretical. However, the research undergone there adds some strength to my own admittedly controversial theories. Wikipedia says this: ‘The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or antimatter counterpart of the electron ….and has the same mass. When a positron collides with an electron, annihilation occurs……certain kinds of particle accelerators involve colliding positrons and electrons at relativistic speeds. Their high impact energy and ‘their’ (sic) mutual annihilation…..creates a fountain of diverse subatomic particles.’
Surely, what is described above is replicated within ‘black holes’ where an infinite gravitational force crushes orbiting electrons and positrons together to cause their annihilation into countless subatomic particles effectively without mass, from which the resulting energy can only be expressed as velocity. However, velocity itself may not provide the answer if all that happens is that the frequency and amplitude of particles’ ‘waves’ become infinite in the ‘immediate aftermath of ‘black holes’. Many may collide and unite immediately making them constituents of matter/ energy visible to us as ‘geysers’ of emissions. However, the overwhelming majority depart as ‘free’ energy in the state of Singularity in which where infinite opportunities to ‘rematerialise’ await.
 
Mar 4, 2020
128
10
105
I believe that you are using a nonsense to counter another nonsense. That was not an insult towards you.

Our modern explanation and theory of light has led to the theory of space-time.

And nature has been laughing it's butt off for one hundred years.

Light is not a wave. It does not "wave" like a media wave does. It strobes.

All modern theory dissolves when you understand light in the proper fashion.

The duration of emission of a media wave is one period, consisting of 1/2 period of one polarity and 1/2 period of the other polarity.

The duration of emission of an EM emission is zero. It snaps. It's instant. And only one polarity is emitted at a time. The emitted polarity has a period of 1/2 period as it flies thru space. The emitted duration will induce an induction in the absorber for 1/2 period duration.....and the absorber will take another 1/2 period to react and relax.

To review. A media wave has 1 period of emission. It has a continuous alternation in flight to absorber. The absorber takes 1 period to absorb.

Light has zero duration of emission. In flight, it has 1/2 period duration and 1/2 period of no emission(a 50% duty cycle). The absorber takes 1 period for absorption.

Light emission can not pile up or stretch. Only the phase(start of absorption) and the absorption duration can change with relative velocity. Think about that and what that means.

This is very different to what we all have been taught. And it truly explains the relative velocity of light without the need for local time.

If you are familiar with radio, you can see this dynamic for yourself.

No one needs to change time to understand the velocity light. A duty cycle will suffice.

Occam's Razor for light. When this is finally recognized, all theory will change.

Because all we got for the last hundred years is this false space-time premise.
 
Apr 30, 2020
5
0
30
I believe that you are using a nonsense to counter another nonsense. That was not an insult towards you.

Our modern explanation and theory of light has led to the theory of space-time.

And nature has been laughing it's butt off for one hundred years.

Light is not a wave. It does not "wave" like a media wave does. It strobes.

All modern theory dissolves when you understand light in the proper fashion.

The duration of emission of a media wave is one period, consisting of 1/2 period of one polarity and 1/2 period of the other polarity.

The duration of emission of an EM emission is zero. It snaps. It's instant. And only one polarity is emitted at a time. The emitted polarity has a period of 1/2 period as it flies thru space. The emitted duration will induce an induction in the absorber for 1/2 period duration.....and the absorber will take another 1/2 period to react and relax.

To review. A media wave has 1 period of emission. It has a continuous alternation in flight to absorber. The absorber takes 1 period to absorb.

Light has zero duration of emission. In flight, it has 1/2 period duration and 1/2 period of no emission(a 50% duty cycle). The absorber takes 1 period for absorption.

Light emission can not pile up or stretch. Only the phase(start of absorption) and the absorption duration can change with relative velocity. Think about that and what that means.

This is very different to what we all have been taught. And it truly explains the relative velocity of light without the need for local time.

If you are familiar with radio, you can see this dynamic for yourself.

No one needs to change time to understand the velocity light. A duty cycle will suffice.

Occam's Razor for light. When this is finally recognized, all theory will change.

Because all we got for the last hundred years is this false space-time premise.
I can't see much of your reply that has the slightest relation with what I was talking about. You seem more interested in elaborating on your own theories than raising objections to mine. If you insert a number of mirrors between a light source and a receptor, you will increase the distance it has to travel. Believe it or not the light gets fainter. Try putting two mirrors face to face and put a candle between them. The images will stretch into the distance as they gradually disappear. The space didnt expand! The light just travelled a roundabout route. Do you get the picture now? Funnily enough the light will also take longer to arrive.
Mike
 
Nov 26, 2019
13
11
35
I would suggest that Mike has been at school, and learned what he was tought, and now is expelling such teachings as if all other theories are dynamically 'Unsupportable', Yet the so called; "Ramblings of an old man", is adequately supported by cross referencing of such observations, and I can see that such "Ramblings" should take precedence over previous understandings of Physics in this particular field, as being "Profoundly Accurate", and I personally give him credit for his fantastic work.
 
Apr 30, 2020
5
0
30
Thank you Anthony for your kind words. Much appreciated. Not many people have the courage to challenge what we have been taught. Not one scientist has argued with the points I made. But that's a long way short of validating them! Mike
 
Nov 26, 2019
13
11
35
You would write a very interesting book Mike, it should be one of the most phenomenal Transcripts of this century, the only problem is that most people are not as versatile, or refuse to be, because of their own 'Blocked Mind', as your multifaceted corroboration of evidenced provides the solution to questions that they may not fully grasp or understand... ( Remember not to write anything that sounds like a; may be, or might be, could be etc...)
Even the scientific community would have trouble understanding the complexities of your integrated works, because it covers some highly specific topics, that may be way out of their field.
Your description is all encompassing, and should be recognized as valid, to be presented as a contender for a Nobel prize, that is not ramblings, however, you may refine your presentation.
Cheers from Tony.
 
Apr 30, 2020
5
0
30
Hi Tony,
I had a book published in 2018 called "Einstein's E=mc2- an alternative view of the Cosmos". Very cheap from Amazon. Thanks again for your encouragement.
Mike
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY