a. The illusion of light and the nature of the photon
The other hypothese (in which I believe) are now coming with the remainder of my cosmogonical description. You know that Einstein believed that space and time was only one dimension in the universe. Gravity is a force that changes the fabric of the spacetime. The greater the mass is, the more it distorts the fabric, and the celestial object can disappear into the fabric of space-time. This deformation is why any object is deflected and can “fall” in the space-time. This also applies to the light, according to Einstein, which is thus “redshifted” precisely because of the gravitational effect.
In fact, the redshift of the reflected or created light by a celestial object is also known as an optical effect resulting from the movement of the celestial object. As the Doppler effect concerning the sound, it is a kind of hallucination of the senses, rather than a « real » fact. When a motorcycle passes near you, you can hear that the sound get changed, but the sound itself is in fact not changed and the driver does not notice the difference, that you and only you can hear.
According to Einstein, gravity also affects the time since we are talking about space-time. Time is slower in a gravitational hole than outside. This is the famous paradox of the twins. If a twin travel in the space far from Earth and away from any gravitational field, and another twin remains on Earth during this time, the first twin will return to Earth aged five years, while the second will be aged ten years. They have also perceived different times, and their watches have given different times…
Thus, according to this theory it is technically possible to travel in time, and it comes quickly to religious delusions as wormholes and travel in the past, on which many so-called “scientific” are working.
We are told that of course, it is very difficult to imagine, but it is a re-ve-la-tion, just as when it was discovered that the Earth is round. Except that thinking the Earth is round is in fact quite natural, and it is likely that this fact was known long before Ptolemy, as explained before. Indeed, no direct evidence is lacking, and they were observed for a long time: horizon, movement of the stars in the sky, and movement of the planets, round celestial bodies taken as example, such as the sun and of course the moon with a clearly observable shadow, when the shadow is a well known and well understood phenomenon on Earth.
The comparison is therefore, in my opinion, totally biased, and it can not be evoked to try to sell us a hypothesis that challenges our deepest instincts, and whose gaps are obvious. I defy you, Mr. Einstein, to make me believe that I would lose my life when traveling in space. No, my life, my time, my temporal velocity, will always be with me and will remain unchanged because it is inherent in my nature, and your clocks whose functioning was observed and adjusted in Earth’s gravity should be damned.
Your fabric of spacetime should be damned too, and also your explanation of black holes. I do not believe that. You are asking me to believe without seeing? It reminds me of someone. Everyone says you’re a genius? It reminds me of someone. A Jewish genius, like thay said about Jesus. I do not believe in the modern Jesus, as him, you are not the son of any god. You are an impostor. I do not believe in your spacetime, I do not believe in the Big Bang and in the new genesis, I do not believe in the finiteness of the universe. You will not abuse any heathen heart, who believes what it feels, any true scientifical heart which feels the infinitude of the universe.
Damned should be your lies.
b. The invisible light
So here is what I think:
The universe is infinite. It is impossible to directly (as we are used too) see, when the logic requires to think that, because it is impossible to travel to an absolute speed. Each mass object has an own temporal velocity (read time) and the possibility of an own geographical speed depending on its own mass, and other parameters.
Light, or rather the photon is special because it has no mass. The fact that it is not mass offers the following aspect: its temporal velocity and its geographically velocity (or speed) are identical. Its temporal velocity is its geographical velocity, it is inherent in its nature: the photon travel geographically and always at the same speed at the same time it lives, a moment of its life is a distance, and indeed its life (its temporal velocity) only stops when its geographical speed is stopped, but not by itself (and that makes the tired light hypothesis impossible). It can be stopped (and never slowed down) only by a total absorption, and what we perceive as black holes, for example, are simply celestial bodies which absorb all frequencies of the photon and which reflect nothing, the photon can not go out of this celestial body, and the photon is “dead”, but it has absolutely nothing to do with gravity.
Other bodies can “age” the photon absorbing some of its high-energy frequencies and letting only those who have a lower energy (or lower frequencies). However, the photon, whatever its frequency, always travel at the same speed that is inherent in its non-mass nature. It interacts with the mass matter and gives the energy it loses. It carries in a way less, but it travel at the same speed.
I proposed a hypothesis for the cosmic microwave background radiation. It is maybe likely and logical, but I do not believe it is the right one. I believe that the cosmic background radiation and the redshift of distant objects is directly due to the nature of the photon. The light is not tired, it do not die or get aged by itself, it meets along its way some interstellar particles that swallow some of its frequency and the redshift itself could be the result of a more significant absorption (the dark nebula mentioned before), but if this is not the case, I think it is first and foremost an optical illusion caused by the difference in nature between the photon and ourselves.
The explanation of the so-called accelerating of the expansion of the universe is even more crispy, you will see, because it can be explained perfectly with this hypothesis.
In fact, it is not really an accelerating. This acceleration is only seen as an accelerating because they imagine a deceleration, supposed to have taken place in the past in relation to the theory of the Big Bang explosion. Again a bandage placed on a wound that exposes the flaws in this theory. This is not an acceleration that is observed, but a lack of deceleration exactly where it was expected. No, the universe is not decelerating under the force of gravitational attraction. The so-called impulse from Big Bang remains constant. Big problem. Rather than reviewing the theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, they put a bandage as usual: an x in the gaping hole of the mathematical formula, which visually get translated in a supposed dark energy (74% of the universe!), and which will settle all mathematical problems. This supposed dark energy is a kind of force against the gravitational force, which should have decelerated the expansion of the universe, according to the official theory.
The expansion of the universe, remember, is nothing other than the observation of the red shift, which it has been explained by the difference in nature between the photon and matter. On my schema and through this explanation, it is clear why the observed brightness of distant objects does not decrease, whereas the theory of Big Bang wants. The redshift remains almost constant because the reason for the red shift is constant, as you can see from the schema below.
Description of the schema:
Down: TV : Temporal Velocity, your life, or the life of every object in the universe. 1 TV = 1 second
To the right: D geographical Distance. D 1 = 300 000 000 m
Suppose you are a person located in the universe in L1 (the crossing point of D2, T1). You receive a photon from a star located in D1; T0. This photon is blue for example, but when you get this photon in L1, a second later (or any unit of time, you must simply multiply the distance as well), the frequency of the photon will seem to be (to you) slightly less than it is actually. If you are located in L2, the difference will even be more pronounced, and in L3 and L4 even more.
In L4, the light will seem to you clearly red, for example, when it is actually blue. If you are very far from the light source, then you will receive microwave (less energy/frequency), and even further you will not receive anything, that is to say, you will not only see black, but you will not be able to perceive any wave. The black is somehow invisible light.
Suppose now that you are a person located in L2 (D3 T4). You receive photons of light from an object located in D1, T2. A part of the spectrum (energy) of the photons are absorbed by an object located in D2, T3. Photons you appear in L2 (D3 T4) with a lower frequency (eg orange) that their starting frequency (blue for example). This time, the photons have really changed their frequency.
Suppose now that you are a person located in L2 (D3 T4). You receive photons of light from an object located in D1 T2. A part of the spectrum (energy) of the photons are absorbed by an object located in D2 T3. The Photons appear to you in L2 (D3 T4) with a lower frequency (eg orange) that their starting frequency (blue for example). This time, the photons have really changed their frequency.
The experience of the black hole is imaged in D2 T4.
The black hole is an object placed in D2 T4 whose material absorbs all frequencies and therefore stop the photons coming from the object placed in LS2 (D1, T3). The black hole can possibly be “seen” by the photons from the surrounding area of LS2 and which are passing next to the “black hole”object located in D2 T4.
If the black hole is moving, it is possible to observe the light from the object LS2 in L2 for example (of course, the light undergoes a red shift which is not reproduced in the drawing for clarity).
If we place a mirror (or if there is an object which reflect light strongly) in L1, we will never observe the light from the object LS2 in L2, and then, in the same way as in the case the black hole, it might be possible to observe its contours (not shown in the schema). Thus, a black hole can be either an object which absorbs all frequencies of the photon or a strongly reflecting object, or both.
Finally, in L5, you can observe photons from LS3 (of course red shifted). If the object LS3 no longer emits photons, you will notice this change one unit of time later.
On the other hand, if from L1 you want to go where you think the object LS1 (or LS2 or it may be the same object) is, you have to use many units of time or temporal velocity in addition to your geographically speed to achieve this.
Time is a displacement.