Why Light, Time and Redshifting do not support establishment doctrine
Relativity and Big Banging are not supported by these underlying precepts.
Many posts have discussed why the speed of light constant at 300.000 km per second is incorrect. If this criticism is valid, it means that the age of the universe is wrong and ‘The Big Bang’ and Relativity must be declared implausible. As a corollary it also indicates that the theories about light-shifting due to a difference in frequency (blue or red-shifting) are also without merit.
Redshifting theory is wrong
Other posts have discussed red shifting, often used a ‘proof’ for the Big Bang. Halton Arp and others have proven that these claims from ‘The Science’ are illusory. The idea is simple enough and was proposed by Edwin Hubble a hundred years ago. The theory is that when light is received with a lower frequency, it is called ‘red-shifted’. It is assumed that given the lower frequency the light is of greater age than a beam emitting a higher frequency or a ‘blue shift’. This theory is just that – a theory.
Using the above as a context, a red-shift emission is received when a star is emitting light as it moves away from the Earth. There are many assumptions in this model. The establishment explanation is that a red shift indicates a light emission which has lost energy during its journey (propagating at a lower frequency over time). Images accompany the explanation showing that the light waves are getting longer as the light moves away from the star and as the star accelerates away from the Earth (another assumption). We know that a light’s frequency is proportional to its energy, and this supposedly explains the lower frequency.
(standard redshift image)
Gravity and Light
This red shift theory ignores the fact that a gravitational field will have the same effect on the light beam. Mechanical experiments have proven this, and you can do one yourself. There are many experiments where for example, light has been sent from the bottom of a 50- or 100-foot-high tower, to a receiver at the top of the tower. Using an atomic clock, a weak red shift or lower frequency light emission can be registered. Why?
The explanation is that light loses energy by passing through the Earth’s gravitational field, which is stronger at the surface, than at the top of the tower. Light also loses ‘energy’ by passing a gravitational field in ‘empty’ space (for example by the Sun). We know that light is simply a wave (of photons, of particles), and we know that a wave movement never changes its frequency. We can say therefore that the establishment explanation of red shifting does not correlate to reality.
Given that light is a wave movement, even as it changes its speed depending on the media, it will never change its frequency. We know that sound for example does not change its frequency by passing through water or metal. The speed may change, but not the frequency. The same is true for light waves.
Redshift explained
The simple and correct explanation of the red shift is that the light emission, from start to finish is red-shifted, or emitted at a lower frequency. The speed may change, but the frequency and color pattern will not change.
Consider a star. Everything in the star takes place at a lower speed because it is situated in a gravitational field. Einstein and the Relativists would state that time on this star or within this gravitational pull would be slower (and they are wrong, it is the mechanical measurement of the processes which slow down not time itself).
In the context of light emission, it does not matter if it is the time, or the processes, going slower. The important factor is that the light is emitted with a lower frequency than would have been the case, if it happened outside the gravitational field. When an observer on Earth receives this red-shifted light, it is solely because the star is situated in a gravitational field.
This phenomenon called ‘gravitational red shift’, is real and can be proven with tower experiments on this planet. Yet nowhere in the establishment science will you read about it. Only articles and texts with ‘Einstein was right about ‘red-shifting’ are allowed to be published. Einstein was wrong of course.
Curvature nonsense
In the next post we will discuss the space-time curvature fraud. In relation to ‘red shifting’ and ‘long ages’ it is appropriate to quickly mention it here. Relativity and the Bangers propose the following:
· Space is not the 3-dimensional grid of reality, it is 4 dimensions with space-time added (the nonsense of ‘string theory’ has 10 or even 100 dimensions),
· ‘Geodesics’ are patterns or lines within this 4-dimensional model, on which planets rotate around the Sun and interact with other planets and their mass; in this model images are offered showing planets ‘sinking’ into this geodesic compression (a heavy ball on a pillow),
· The Sun’s mass ‘pushes’ these ‘geodesics’ outwards, ‘bending’ them at the ‘rim’ and in curved space-time as they orbit the Sun,
· Light from stars will follow the geodesic patterns and movements, which means that,
· When we observe starlight on Earth it will appear that these stars have moved a tiny fraction of their distance from the Sun (solar parallax)
The underlying never proven assumptions are that somehow the Sun is ‘pushing’ ‘geodesics’ and that space-time is curved. Both are false. Nowhere will you find an explanation or physical proof of what this ‘pushing’ entails or how space and time can be merged.
For example, we know that time is independent of space and has nothing to do with a physical background. Time is the measurement of a process using clocks against objects and their motion. As a metric, ‘time’ must be ‘clocked’ between objects based on a 3-D reference grid. Relativity does not support a reference grid nor absolutes, nor the measurement of velocity between objects.
More likely, the slight bending we see when we measure stars and their position relative to our Sun, is most likely due to the gradient in the Sun’s gravitational field. We know that light is delayed in a gravitational field. This would apply to the Sun as well as to the Earth. Near the Sun’s gravitational attraction light must be delayed more than it is further away from the Sun. This explanation is simpler and more elegant and negates the fantasy world of curved space.
We also know that in the Milky Way light takes 100.000 years to reach from the outer edge of the visible galaxy to the other. This phenomenon would also be affected by gravity based on the above explanation. This means, pace Newton, every star will be attracted by the mass of all the other stars because light and gravity propagate equally fast. There is no need to make up the fantasy of curved space and a space-time dimension. In this regard Newton was right, Einstein delirious. (There are many issues with Newton’s theories covered elsewhere but for brevity’s sake we won’t list them here).
Bottom Line
Relativity and Big Banging are wrong on both time and space. Time is a human created abstract which relies on measuring distance and velocity between 2 objects. We must differentiate between ‘time’ which cannot be changed and is a human only construct; and the processes to mark time which are affected by gravity and other forces. Boil your alarm clock in heated water and you will notice that time will appear to slow down. It does not. The mechanisms within the clock are impaired and slow down the measuring of time (the law of entropy).
We can scientifically surmise that red shifting is probably related to gravity acting on light emissions. We know that sound and light waves cannot change frequency, a fact which can be proven in experiments at home. We do know that gravity retards the clocking of time or the process of measuring time (not time itself), again with experiments that can be done quite simply at a local research institution. This means that the dogma, claiming that red shifting proves the age and size of the universe is unsubstantiated.
Further, the James Webb Telescope data is also quite clear. Based on what is known, the universe is a flat disc, and is not curved. This data again contradicts redshifting, long age time estimations and Relativity.
====
References
Martin Gardner: Relativity Simply Explained, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York, 1997
Albert Einstein: The Meaning of Relativity, With an introduction by Brian Green, Princeton University Press, 1921
Carlo Rovelli: Tidens Orden (L’ordine del tempo), Gyldendal A/S, 2020
Sean Carroll: Spacetime and Geometry, An Introduction to General Relativity, Pearson Education Limited, 2014.
Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw: Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?), Da Capo Press, 2009 [-> note E=mc2 is wrong]
