The Wavelength of Light Is Constant, Not Variable

Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
A light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE


The fact that the motion of the observer does not change distances between subsequent pulses is obvious. Moreover, this fact is universally used, explicitly or implicitly, in the derivation of the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer):

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics: "You can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift." https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/doppler/

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength...but a different frequency...to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V' = V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f' = V'/λ = (V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo...The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

The only problem with the obvious fact referred to above is that it is fatal for Einstein's relativity. If the motion of the observer does not change distances between subsequent light pulses, then the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer VARIES proportionally to the frequency at the moving observer.

In this thread I am going to show that the generalization of the obvious fact, which is

The wavelength of light is constant.

is universally valid. And if so, "The wavelength of light is constant" deserves to become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics.
 
If a person continues to think of light as a waveform, the person will never understand light. Light is not a waveform and it does not have frequency. A frequency is a back and forth. A component of the "wave" alternates. Either with polarity or direction. And a wave is continuous.

Light does not do this. Light is digital. It's on and off. AND the on and off ratio, called the duty cycle, can be varied independently. This is a duty cycle that is VERY un-familiar with science and engineering.

A different kind of duty cycle. Everybody thinks a duty cycle is easy to understand. The duty cycle of EM radiation is much different the the duty cycle of power control.

This is because the off time and the on time, can be varied independently with relative motion.

And trying to get someone to understand this is impossible. I have tried for years to explain it, but no one can see it. It's like a curse on man's intellect. A blindness.

So, I sit here and listen to all these alternate explanations of light. And I am always disappointed. To this day no one understands light.

This universe is square and firm. It has been set. Probability, randomness and chaos are not permitted.
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
Constant wavelength of light is an unavoidable conclusion if one ignores for a while the absurdities of Einstein's relativity and returns to common sense:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

So the speed of falling light increases and the frequency increases "accordingly". It is clear from the context that "accordingly" means "proportionally". And since the frequency and the speed of light vary proportionally, the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

says that the wavelength remains constant. As simple as that.
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Whether Feynman is correct is not a matter of discussion here. I am just drawing the attention to a crucial implication. The concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M


is preposterous if "light is made of particles". That is, the particle model of light implies that the wavelength can only be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

And the formula says that, if the wavelength is constant, the so called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light slowing down as photons travel through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe. This is not a totally unacceptable idea:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
It is obvious that the particle model of light is incompatible with VARIABLE wavelength of light. Curiously, the wave model is incompatible as well:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

This interpretation implies that the emitter is CHASING the emitted crest - that is the reason why, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests is smaller than when the emitter is stationary:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s


As chasing becomes faster and faster, the distance between crests approaches zero - the emitted crests remain in the vicinity of the emitter for a long time. Absurd, isn't it?

The variation of the wavelength of light with the speed of the emitter is absurd not only intuitively. It is incompatible with the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

For light waves, there can be no chasing. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the speed of the emitted crest relative to the emitter remains constant, c. Accordingly, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests remains unchanged - the same as when the emitter is stationary.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.
 
Frequency is not in the light. Frequency is mass's reaction to light. Mass jiggles and vibrates when struck by light. Like a bell being struck by a clapper. Mass rings and sings when struck by light.

With certain light, mass can expand and/or contract when struck by it. These are very quick and relatively large changes in physical size. And only certain sizes are allowed. We do not see this dynamic in our macro-world. It's the quantum "effect". And it all comes from rotational resonance.
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml

At the same time Einsteinians teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all (they reject the scenario in which expansion does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction):

"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."
View: https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356


Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

So light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc.

The statement that light is stretched by space expansion, just like Big Brother's 2+2=5, is so preposterous that no rational criticism is possible. The reaction can only be hysterical ("But this is idiotic, don't you see?") and then the critic becomes crank, crackpot, troll, etc.

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
Imagine a scenario in which an observer measures a shift in the frequency of the incoming light. Given the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength),

we conclude that the frequency shift is caused by

(a) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

(b) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

The generalization of (a) over all possible scenarios is

(A) Any frequency shift is caused by an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

The generalization of (b) over all possible scenarios is

(B) Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.

It is easy to see that (A) is logically equivalent to Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

(A') The speed of light is constant.

Analogously, (B) is logically equivalent to

(B') The wavelength of light is constant.

I have been trying to show, for decades, that the fundamental axiom (A') turned out to be a malignancy the metastases of which killed theoretical physics. If so, it makes sense to try to build a new, Einstein-free physics predicated on the axiom (B'). Here are some of the corollaries of the new fundamental axiom:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.

Corollary 5: The so-called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light gradually slowing down as light travels through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that low-speed, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible.
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
"The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity...The speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/waseinsteinwrong/

It is not even around the corner - it is inside the house, on the couch. The speed of light OBVIOUSLY varies with the speed of the observer, and the all-powerful relativistic ideology is not able to camouflage this fact any more:

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE


The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer.

The speed of light is variable, theoretical physicists. The wavelength of light, however, depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.
 
If a person continues to think of light as a waveform, the person will never understand light. Light is not a waveform and it does not have frequency. A frequency is a back and forth. A component of the "wave" alternates. Either with polarity or direction. And a wave is continuous.

Light does not do this. Light is digital. It's on and off. AND the on and off ratio, called the duty cycle, can be varied independently. This is a duty cycle that is VERY un-familiar with science and engineering.

A different kind of duty cycle. Everybody thinks a duty cycle is easy to understand. The duty cycle of EM radiation is much different the the duty cycle of power control.

This is because the off time and the on time, can be varied independently with relative motion.

And trying to get someone to understand this is impossible. I have tried for years to explain it, but no one can see it. It's like a curse on man's intellect. A blindness.

So, I sit here and listen to all these alternate explanations of light. And I am always disappointed. To this day no one understands light.

This universe is square and firm. It has been set. Probability, randomness and chaos are not permitted.

OK, how does your theory explain the refraction of light? The dispersion of white light into a spectrum with a diffraction grating or prism? Explain then how lasers work? And how does your theory explain diffraction? And the two slit experiment? Pretty tall hurdle for your theory. If it can explain all these, then I've got more. And if it can't, then we all know what that makes your theory.
 
"The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity...The speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/waseinsteinwrong/

It is not even around the corner - it is inside the house, on the couch. The speed of light OBVIOUSLY varies with the speed of the observer, and the all-powerful relativistic ideology is not able to camouflage this fact any more:

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE


The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer.

The speed of light is variable, theoretical physicists. The wavelength of light, however, depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.
The speed of light is invariably constant (c) to all local measurers and measurements of it, regardless of their relative speeds, even if a speed of one could be said to be relatively infinite to another. A traveler of any kind between point A and point B (herein two stars, or two galaxies, light years apart), where points A and B are maintaining a relatively constant distance between them has no limit on his speed point A to point B, or point B to point A. Observers at point A and point B, and the traveler, will all measure the same constant of the speed of light to be 'c'. Distances between, concerning the traveler relative to the two points A and B, and observers at the two points relative to the traveler, will always be a matter of 'uncertainty'. That will be because none of the observers, including the traveler as an observer, will be observing any real time point in space at all. All will be observing flexible and flexing histories only and no histories observed will be observed to be the same history, an identical history, to any two or more observers. All observers will exist in the same 0-point real time absolute to the others (the speed of light measuring an identical 'c' to all), regardless of all being unobservable as such (all being observed only as some differing point in a relatively 'uncertain' point of history to all the rest). It's a multi-dimensional, multiplex (including multi-level), Multiverse-Universe.
 
Last edited:
Feb 18, 2023
40
4
535
Visit site
The speed of light is invariably constant (c) to all local measurers and measurements of it, regardless of their relative speeds, even if a speed of one could be said to be relatively infinite to another. A traveler of any kind between point A and point B (herein two stars, or two galaxies, light years apart), where points A and B are maintaining a relatively constant distance between them has no limit on his speed point A to point B, or point B to point A. Observers at point A and point B, and the traveler, will all measure the same constant of the speed of light to be 'c'. Distances between, concerning the traveler relative to the two points A and B, and observers at the two points relative to the traveler, will always be a matter of 'uncertainty'. That will be because none of the observers, including the traveler as an observer, will be observing any real time point in space at all. All will be observing flexible and flexing histories only and no histories observed will be observed to be the same history, an identical history, to any two or more observers. All observers will exist in the same 0-point real time absolute to the others (the speed of light measuring an identical 'c' to all), regardless of all being unobservable as such (all being observed only as some differing point in a relatively 'uncertain' point of history to all the rest). It's a multi-dimensional, multiplex (including multi-level), Multiverse-Universe.
 
Feb 18, 2023
40
4
535
Visit site
Redshift is not Doppler. It is attenuation, At extreme distances light attenuates towards the red end of the spectrum. Even blue light we receive from say Andromeda has red shifted to some degree. Light cannot be blue shifted under any scenario. Light wavelengths change over distance and can go down to radio frequencies. Light speed is constant throughout the universe, therefore, speed of light = frequency x wavelength. Doppler is an illusion. Regardless of sound coming towards you or going away, the wavelength is exactly the same. It’s only an illusion of wavelength change. Redshift attenuation has nothing to with stars or galaxies moving towards or away from us. Hubble was wrong, therefore Einstein theory, dark matter/energy, black holes, etc is just stuff of fairy tales..in my humble opinion.
 
Except Andromeda galaxy and Earth are approaching each other, due to mutual gravitation, at 300 km per second. It is 2.5 million light years away. There are about 100 other galaxies that also show a blue shift. Expansion of space does not dominate until distance of ten million light years.
 
Feb 18, 2023
40
4
535
Visit site
There is no such thing as blueshift. Only redshift. Andromeda is indeed blue in its frequency. Let’s assume 650 THz in the blue zone. Even travelling at almost the speed of light it can’t increase to say 670 THz. It can only redshift to say 630 THz when the hits us. So it is still blue but it has redshifted..just not quite as blue. Redshift has nothing to do with velocity. It is only a function of distance. Andromeda is blue because it is close..that’s it. You will not find a blue star or galaxy at the extremes of our capabilities. Speed of light is constant, so c = frequency at source x wavelength we receive, therefore easy to calculate distance to star or galaxy. Light is not Doppler which is sound wavelength change illusion.
 
Feb 18, 2023
40
4
535
Visit site
There is no such thing as blueshift. Only redshift. Andromeda is indeed blue in its frequency. Let’s assume 650 THz in the blue zone. Even travelling at almost the speed of light it can’t increase to say 670 THz. It can only redshift to say 630 THz when the hits us. So it is still blue but it has redshifted..just not quite as blue. Redshift has nothing to do with velocity. It is only a function of distance. Andromeda is blue because it is close..that’s it. You will not find a blue star or galaxy at the extremes of our capabilities. Speed of light is constant, so c = frequency at source x wavelength we receive, therefore easy to calculate distance to star or galaxy. Light is not Doppler which is sound wavelength change illusion.
Oops to clarify, there are blue stars and galaxies at the extremes of our visible universe but by the time the light gets here it has redshifted even into non visible radio frequencies.
 
A light source moving away from you is red shifted. The increasing distance forces the trough to trough distance to increase. Conversely, if the source is moving towards you, the waves are shortened and the light appears bluer. We see blue shifting every day. If you can't accept that, then there is nothing else I can do for you. Have a good one.
 
Feb 18, 2023
40
4
535
Visit site
A light source moving away from you is red shifted. The increasing distance forces the trough to trough distance to increase. Conversely, if the source is moving towards you, the waves are shortened and the light appears bluer. We see blue shifting every day. If you can't accept that, then there is nothing else I can do for you. Have a good one.
Nope. Redshift is a function of distance only. As light travels extreme distances the light “tires’, that is it increases its redshift. I’m sorry I tire you. Read David Rowland’s “undoing a Century of Cosmological Errors” He’s way more eliquent than I will ever be.
 
Redshift, the object is farther away than it appears . . . than it measures to be. The image is closer in space and time to an observer than the reality. Object reality and object image are separating, to very, very, largely separated (very, very, largely redshifted), as the object reality gains distance on the object image going away. A three-point triangulation of points expanding in triangulation. The image is slowing down in time, the image-clock is slowing, falling behind reality farther and ever farther in observed space and time.

Blueshift, the object reality is closing on the observer, closing also on the image the observer observes, shrinking a three-point triangulation of points toward a 0-point. The image is speeding up in time, the image-clock is speeding up catching up toward reality, reality climbing up the rear end of the light-time image-history showing to the observer ever faster.
 
Last edited:
Feb 18, 2023
40
4
535
Visit site
Redshift, the object is farther away than it appears . . . than it measures to be. The image is closer in space and time to an observer than the reality. Object reality and object image are separating, to very, very, largely separated (very, very, largely redshifted), as the object reality gains distance on the object image going away. A three-point triangulation of points expanding in triangulation. The image is slowing down in time, the image-clock is slowing, falling behind reality farther and ever farther in observed space and time.

Blueshift, the object reality is closing on the observer, closing also on the image the observer observes, shrinking a three-point triangulation of points toward a 0-point. The image is speeding up in time, the image-clock is speeding up catching up toward reality, reality climbing up the rear end of the light-time image-history showing to the observer ever faster.

----------------------------

Superman stands on the Moon, the fastest thing in the universe, super, super, fast (fast enough to teleport instantaneously point A to point B). With his x-ray vision he spots a piano falling from a window of a ten-story building just about to smash and crush a cat below, an animal he loves dearly (he is a cat lover). Standing on the Moon, he sees the cat still alive and if he moves instantly to the scene, he thinks he will save the cat.

He moves instantly to the scene, teleporting instantaneously with no loss of time to the scene, only to find the piano has beaten him to the sidewalk and killed the cat. How did that happen with superman speeding infinitely fast, essentially teleporting instantaneously from point A on the Moon to point B on Earth? someone might wonder. It happened because the cat on Earth was already dead when superman on the Moon observed it to be alive . . . already dead, at the very instant superman was observing -- per and from the speed of light -- he would have enough time to save it if he traveled infinitely fast to save it. He traveled faster than the speed of light, someone might think wrongly, to the scene (in traveling infinitely fast) and was nowhere near fast enough to save the cat.

Any travel, any travel at all, even at the smallest fraction of a second, a split second, from anywhere in the universe to anywhere else in the universe, even a billion, ten billion, light years apart, is no travel faster than the speed of light. Traveling histories, ascending universes' light-time histories, any point A in a universe to any unobserved and unobservable real-time point B ('dark' 0-point real-time to 'dark' 0-point real-time) whatsoever in a universe, however fast the travel, is never faster than the speed of light. Just to move period is to travel a history, forward a history, ascend a light-time history point to point in the universe, never traveling faster than the speed of light.
 
Feb 18, 2023
40
4
535
Visit site
A train whistle is coming towards you. Man that is high pitched and annoying. The whistle is now departing. Ahhh, that sound is lower and much more pleasant to listen to. Has the sound wave changed? That’s Doppler. An illusion of change.
The wavelength of light actually does change. If we assume two galaxies with identical SURFACE brightness then the light we receive from the one that has the greater redshift is the one that is further away. That’s it. Nothing to do with anything moving away from us. You cannot just look at redshift of a star or galaxy from earth to determine diddly squat..in my humble opinion.
 
A train whistle is coming towards you. Man that is high pitched and annoying. The whistle is now departing. Ahhh, that sound is lower and much more pleasant to listen to. Has the sound wave changed? That’s Doppler. An illusion of change.
The wavelength of light actually does change. If we assume two galaxies with identical SURFACE brightness then the light we receive from the one that has the greater redshift is the one that is further away. That’s it. Nothing to do with anything moving away from us. You cannot just look at redshift of a star or galaxy from earth to determine diddly squat..in my humble opinion.
The redshift of the universe itself is to, is toward, infinity, the non-local infinity of universes (u). Infinity in all its variations just happens to be a constant. An unwanted and hated constant, a denied constant, but a constant as is finite (local . . . finite . . . universe (u)) a constant.

Infinity cannot possibly be observed. But it has local representation in 'infinite potential', and . . . in increasing redshift of the finite, the local, expansionist universe (u) to the infinity of other universes (u) (the next level of order: stars, galaxies, universes).

The collapsed constant of horizon between the local finite (u), all of an infinity of local finites (u), and the non-local infinite (U) is the [Big Bang / Planck / Infinite] Horizon. In the Multiverse scheme of the Universe (U), it is also a [purposed] Horizon (H) . . . the other end of which is black hole horizon (h), the infinity of those horizons (h), those countless spokes (h) to the single hub (H), throughout space and time. There are less than three dimensions to the Multiverse, the multi-level multiplex, of the Universe (U), three dimensions, four dimensions, and more than four.
 
Feb 18, 2023
40
4
535
Visit site
The redshift of the universe itself is to, is toward, infinity, the non-local infinity of universes (u). Infinity in all its variations just happens to be a constant. An unwanted and hated constant, a denied constant, but a constant as is finite (local . . . finite . . . universe (u)) a constant.

Infinity cannot possibly be observed. But it has local representation in 'infinite potential', and . . . in increasing redshift of the finite, the local, expansionist universe (u) to the infinity of other universes (u) (the next level of order: stars, galaxies, universes).

The collapsed constant of horizon between the local finite (u), all of an infinity of local finites (u), and the non-local infinite (U) is the [Big Bang / Planck / Infinite] Horizon. In the Multiverse scheme of the Universe (U), it is also a [purposed] Horizon (H) . . . the other end of which is black hole horizon (h), the infinity of those horizons (h), those countless spokes (h) to the single hub (H), throughout space and time. There are less than three dimensions to the Multiverse, the multi-level multiplex, of the Universe (U), three dimensions, four dimensions, and more than four.
Ok cool. You are a standard cosmologist. No worries but maybe your world is crumbing. Time, distance,redshift, expanding universe, dark matter/energy, Relativity, etc. Why not. Anyhow I’ll be long gone before they figure it out. But I guarantee you,,stay tuned,lol.
 

Latest posts