Pushing Back the Horizon

[Atlan0001]

It appears with all the new sightings, astronomers and physicists now want to push the Big Bang Horizon back another 13-billion years (13-billion light years) to 26.7-billion years (26.7-billion light years). Soon they are going to have a big problem, the increase in the scale of complexity and chaos in the picture and the collapse in the Horizon beyond another Planck limit of [relative] scale. The lensing already distorts the picture hugely -- to cartoonish caricatures of any reality (the distortions, the cartoons, the caricatures, they insist are, or were, the reality of the nonlocal universe "at a distance") -- and soon enough they won't have even those ("Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass") 'Big Mirror' mirrored distortions to fall back upon.

 

[Classical Motion]

I don't believe the distortions we observe are from back in time, I think they are from our measurement methods we use. And therefore not understanding light/matter interaction. And the inherent distortion from that interaction. But the greatest distortions come from the narratives of those measurements of distortions. Many do not believe they are distortions. Many believe the distortion is reality.

Many of our measurement methods and techniques are fooling us. Like measuring our fundamental dogma....c. One can not measure c in a flux. A flux IS a constant changing average.

 

[Atlan0001]

I don't believe the distortions we observe are from back in time, I think they are from our measurement methods we use. And therefore not understanding light/matter interaction. And the inherent distortion from that interaction. But the greatest distortions come from the narratives of those measurements of distortions. Many do not believe they are distortions. Many believe the distortion is reality.

Many of our measurement methods and techniques are fooling us. Like measuring our fundamental dogma....c. One can not measure c in a flux. A flux IS a constant changing average.

The physic "lensing" crops up. The possibility of overlaying, inlaying, generations of lensing across the universe and just unidirectional head-on between there (wherever there is) and here, but omni-directional lensing from all the peripheral Horizon of the universe and intersecting (intersections we cannot possibly witness) that head-on appearance of gravitational lensing. The only depth to the universe Relativity allows is light time spacetime. The spatial is flat murals of light-time (spacetime). Relativity forbids spatial depths such as depths of hyper-surface hyperspace gravity in the universe not aimed 1-dimensionally unidirectionally -- flatly -- straight at us.

Professional science on Earth doesn't seem to recognize a universe at large that doesn't fit into either direct or indirect observations from Earth. They don't recognize the possibility of large distortions in nonlocal distances. They won't allow even the possibility, much less the probability, of a hyper-surface layered hyperspace traversable but not observable as such for not being 2-dimensional flatland space that is deep only in light-time (spacetime) dimension. We are indoctrinated in no uncertain terms that Relativity (relativity to the Earth observers) is the reality of the universe at large.

 

[Classical Motion]

"The physic "lensing" crops up. The possibility of overlaying, inlaying, generations of lensing across the universe and just unidirectional head-on between there (wherever there is) and here, but omni-directional lensing from all the peripheral Horizon of the universe and intersecting (intersections we cannot possibly witness) that head-on appearance of gravitational lensing."

I read your post several times, and this is all I think, I could relate too. And not sure of that. Are you suggesting that the cosmos is so large and so dense, that when we look out, we are actually looking thru a series, like a chain, of G lensings? Now that is new and I hadn't heard that one. And are you proposing that no matter what direction we look, we would get that multiple series dynamic. If I am understanding you, that is very interesting.....if the G lensing is a true dynamic. I believe it to be both an instrument and a processing distortion/error.

The rest of your post I could not follow, but that's my failure, not yours. I gave up on the modern narrative of light being a wave and constant V , mass, space-time, BB, Dark Matter, etc, long ago. I went back to Ampere, Weber and Parson and they have always answered my questions. And never failed any phenomena. Ancient or recent. Quite satisfying actually. These classic theories have a much more physical and much simpler narrative and gives the same results. This old classic theory can simulate and predict the values of the periodic table just as well but much easier than the standard model can. With just two particles. I am blessed with a simple intellect.

And thank you for responding to my post.

 

[Classical Motion]

Something just occurred to me. Maybe this is what you were saying. If long looking goes thru several lens, then.....it would look denser.....the farther away you looked. Because the lens tend to cluster the view.

Wow.........that's different. Thanks.

 

[Atlan0001]

"The physic "lensing" crops up. The possibility of overlaying, inlaying, generations of lensing across the universe and just unidirectional head-on between there (wherever there is) and here, but omni-directional lensing from all the peripheral Horizon of the universe and intersecting (intersections we cannot possibly witness) that head-on appearance of gravitational lensing."

I read your post several times, and this is all I think, I could relate too. And not sure of that. Are you suggesting that the cosmos is so large and so dense, that when we look out, we are actually looking thru a series, like a chain, of G lensings? Now that is new and I hadn't heard that one. And are you proposing that no matter what direction we look, we would get that multiple series dynamic. If I am understanding you, that is very interesting.....if the G lensing is a true dynamic. I believe it to be both an instrument and a processing distortion/error.

The rest of your post I could not follow, but that's my failure, not yours. I gave up on the modern narrative of light being a wave and constant V , mass, space-time, BB, Dark Matter, etc, long ago. I went back to Ampere, Weber and Parson and they have always answered my questions. And never failed any phenomena. Ancient or recent. Quite satisfying actually. These classic theories have a much more physical and much simpler narrative and gives the same results. This old classic theory can simulate and predict the values of the periodic table just as well but much easier than the standard model can. With just two particles. I am blessed with a simple intellect.

And thank you for responding to my post.

I'm suggesting Chaos Theory's "zoom universe" and "fractal self-similarity" on that universe scale with gravity outside-in force, including its counterpart or its mirroring self-opposed, anti-gravity, being the framework of such hyper surface hyperspace. This, I go along with, as the actuality of SPACE.

But, more simply put in answer to you, yes, I visualize omni-directional mirroring upon mirroring, upon mirroring lensing from every possible direction there is, would produce a very dense prism effect throughout . . . overlaying, inlaying, distorting the ever more "distant" universe view that could not possibly be observed for what it is. It would probably slow down the light-time (spacetime) of the universe going away from any point of the universe as if it were traveling through a water medium, whatever.

 

[Atlan0001]

".... It would probably slow down the travel of light-time (spacetime) through the universe going away from any local point of the universe as if it were traveling through an ever-increasing density of a water medium "at an ever-increasing distance," whatever. The universe itself appearing to be slowing down in time going away in contractions . . . speeding up in time this way coming in expansions. A cancellation to t=0(1). Yet spatially appearing, the "distant" PBB(B)H Horizon always being the far larger universe always encompassing, always enclosing within its collapsed cosmological constant of Horizon as it does, everything else. Ultimately the distance dome of Horizon hasn't ever broken up . . . and it is never going to break up.
---------------------------

Not even the famously great mathematician Kurt Godel, try as he might, could make an infinite 0-point -- point infinities ("baby universes" without number "on the head of a pin" so to speak) -- finite.