OLBERS' PARADOX - Explanation for the Dark Night Sky

This is Olbers' Universe. Homogeneous, isotropic, with unbounded space and an infinite amount of stars.
This is Olbers' Universe. Homogeneous, isotropic, with unbounded space and an infinite amount of stars. | Source
Olbers assumes that every pixel in the night sky leads to a star.
Olbers assumes that every pixel in the night sky leads to a star.
Mathematicians contradict themselves. Space has no boundaries to separate gravity from expanding space. There are no alleged "Local Groups" of galaxies. Gravitational attraction has the same tension on all the atoms in the Universe!
Mathematicians contradict themselves. Space has no boundaries to separate gravity from expanding space. There are no alleged "Local Groups" of galaxies. Gravitational attraction has the same tension on all the atoms in the Universe!
Galaxy MACS0647-JD is 13.3 billion LY away and yet is still visible. Why hasn't it redshifted outside the visible spectrum after a time of 13.3 BY + expansion of space??  Also notice blue and yellow-shifted galaxies. Doppler Shift contradicts itself!
Galaxy MACS0647-JD is 13.3 billion LY away and yet is still visible. Why hasn't it redshifted outside the visible spectrum after a time of 13.3 BY + expansion of space?? Also notice blue and yellow-shifted galaxies. Doppler Shift contradicts itself!
The distant galaxies from Hubble (CLASH). This is one of thousands of examples of galaxies of all colors in the same photograph. The fact that these galaxies are not red-shifted or invisible contradicts the Big Bang & Inflation theories.
The distant galaxies from Hubble (CLASH). This is one of thousands of examples of galaxies of all colors in the same photograph. The fact that these galaxies are not red-shifted or invisible contradicts the Big Bang & Inflation theories.
Schrödinger's unknown medium for light is denoted as Ψ. It's physical representation is a rope-like medium interconnecting all atoms, as this image from Wiki shows. Notice the 2 E&M strands as they torque torsion-wave signals of light.
Schrödinger's unknown medium for light is denoted as Ψ. It's physical representation is a rope-like medium interconnecting all atoms, as this image from Wiki shows. Notice the 2 E&M strands as they torque torsion-wave signals of light.
Only an extended rope entity can simulate all of Maxwell's equations for light, especially c = ƒ λ. The rope models BOTH the PARTICLE and the WAVE in a single entity! 0D photon particles and 2D conceptual waves do NOT exist!! Any questions?
Only an extended rope entity can simulate all of Maxwell's equations for light, especially c = ƒ λ. The rope models BOTH the PARTICLE and the WAVE in a single entity! 0D photon particles and 2D conceptual waves do NOT exist!! Any questions?
The EM Rope mediator interconnects all atoms in the Universe (i.e. the balls in the pic). A light signal is a torsion-wave along the rope.  Redshift, blueshift and light intensity are natural mechanisms for this rope-like mediator!
The EM Rope mediator interconnects all atoms in the Universe (i.e. the balls in the pic). A light signal is a torsion-wave along the rope. Redshift, blueshift and light intensity are natural mechanisms for this rope-like mediator!
Schrödinger's Ψ abstraction of the EM rope shows the rope exhibiting REDSHIFT with longer λ from the left....as link-lengths compress to the shorter  λ BLUESHIFT region progressing to the right.
Schrödinger's Ψ abstraction of the EM rope shows the rope exhibiting REDSHIFT with longer λ from the left....as link-lengths compress to the shorter λ BLUESHIFT region progressing to the right.
The EM ropes binding distant galaxies are over-extended, increasing their link-length, especially near the center. This static phenomenon is exhibited by all rope-like entities and PHYSICALLY explains why most galaxies appear red-shifted to us.
The EM ropes binding distant galaxies are over-extended, increasing their link-length, especially near the center. This static phenomenon is exhibited by all rope-like entities and PHYSICALLY explains why most galaxies appear red-shifted to us.

INTRODUCTION


Mathematicians claim to have an old, simple question that helps them justify the Creation of the Universe. The question is called Olber’s Paradox, after German astronomer Heinrich W. Olbers; and usually stated as follows:


Q: Why is the night sky dark and not bright like the Sun?


The reason this question is so important, they argue, is because its answer can tell us about the distribution of stars and galaxies in the Universe and henceforth lead us to conclude whether the Universe is eternal or had a moment of Creation. What Mathematicians don’t realize is that Creation is a claim, an alleged event that requires a Theory to rationally explain the mechanism by which space and matter “could” have morphed from the void. Using Olbers’ Paradox to justify Creation is an old ad-hoc parlor trick from those who can’t justify their theories. It’s no different than invoking the beautiful clouds, trees and flowers to justify God's Creation.

This article will explain why the darkness of the night sky has absolutely nothing to do with any alleged Creation (Big Bang), expansion of space, Doppler Shift or even with an eternal Universe. The reason why the night sky is dark has to do with Physics, not because God’s Big Bang Creation made it that way!

We will explain how Olbers’ Paradox was flawed from inception and how its popularity became a vehicle for Creationists to push their Big Bang or God agenda unto the unsuspecting public. Our analysis of the paradox will also enable us to critically reason and rationally justify the overall structure of the Universe.

The Mathematical mainstream has never understood the physical implications of Olbers’ Paradox. They haven’t analyzed it in realistic physical terms (i.e. using Physics). That’s why they don’t have a physical mechanism that rationally explains the darkness of the night sky without invoking magic & contradictions. This article presents a physical mechanism - so the reader is in for a surprise!





HISTORY OF THE PARADOX


This problem had been raised since 1577 by astronomer Thomas Digges, who published his “Perfect Description of the Celestial Spheres” in London in 1576. Digges boldly dismantled the long-held Aristotelian Earth-centered sphere of fixed stars, and randomly scattered the stars throughout infinite space. In doing this he noticed a problem with his model which forms the earliest description of what is now known as Olbers’ Paradox: Why did the now infinite number of stars not make the night sky bright?

Kepler posed this problem in 1610 and argued that the Universe must be bounded with a finite number of stars because, otherwise, an infinite number of stars irrespective of distance would sooner or later illuminate every possible line of sight in the night sky. But Kepler’s proposal of a ‘bounded’ Universe was contradictory because it’s impossible for space to have any boundaries or borders.

Wilhelm Olbers resuscitated the question and stated the paradox as follows:


"Should there really be suns in the whole infinite space, they can be at approximately the same distance from one another, and consequently the whole sky should be as bright as the sun. Clearly, each line which can conceivably be drawn from our eye will necessarily end on one of the stars and each point on the sky would send us starlight, that is, sunlight." -- Wilhelm Olbers (On the Transparency of the Interstellar Medium, published in the 1826 Astronomical Yearbook)



We must not forget that Olbers’ Paradox is predicated on the following 3 basal assumptions:


  1. Space is unbounded and limitless (as described by the term ‘infinite’).
  2. A homogeneous and isotropic Universe with stars uniformly distributed throughout unbounded space; i.e. no galaxies!
  3. The population of stars extends forever into limitless space, so every possible line of sight (i.e. pixel) in the sky ends on a star.


Olbers concludes: The whole night sky should be ablaze like the Sun!


Q: So how can the night sky possibly be dark given such a seemingly-bulletproof argument from Olbers? I mean, where have all the stars gone?

Q: Could Olbers’ proposal be a misrepresentation founded on flawed premises?


We will investigate Olbers’ proposal in detail. But we’ll first examine how the Mathematical establishment took stabs at this alleged Paradox.





THE MATHEMATICAL ESTABLISHMENT NEVER SOLVED OLBERS’ PARADOX


The solutions proposed by Mathematicians miss the mark entirely because they don’t address the core assumptions in Olbers’ Paradox. Instead, they've stealthily employed the popularity of this alleged paradox as a vehicle to promote their own self-serving agenda on Creation. They irrationally claim that Big Bang and the expansion of space solve the paradox.

For instance, they assume space to be a dynamic entity that can grow, warp and expand. But in Olbers’ Paradox, space is nothing; space can’t move! Mathematicians assume the opposite and solve an irrelevant paradox. They’ve applied the paradox in the wrong context! This tactic allows them to use a paradox which “apparently” no human has ever solved, to boast its alleged Big Bang solution to the unsuspecting public.

In an attempt to cover all their bases and add weight to their claim of Creation, they offer two main theories for why the night sky is not lit up like the Sun:



Theory #1: Big Bang Creationism

If the Universe was infinitely old, they argue, the light from stars at extreme distances would have already reached us, even if they were 5000 billion light years away. This hasn’t happened because we live inside a spherical shell of "Observable Universe" which has radius equal to the lifetime of the Universe. Because the Universe is finitely old, has finite number of stars, only finitely many stars can be observed within a given volume of space visible from Earth. The density of stars within this finite volume is sufficiently low that any line of sight from Earth is unlikely to reach a star.

They also argue that light from the farthest stars just hasn't had time to reach us yet because the speed of light is finite. This is the Light Horizon proposal which argues that some of the distant light is below our time horizon. Mathematicians tell us that future generations will burn up when all the distant light "dawns” upon them. These are the ridiculous conclusions they reach when they don't understand what medium can possibly mediate the effects of light.


It is ironic how their arguments from Creation are contradicted by the same observations they employed to assert Creation. These circular arguments have been exposed by NASA which used the Hubble to observe galaxies close to the alleged “edge” of the Universe. With every better telescope they deploy, the deeper their field of resolution and the more galaxies they discover. Technology is the overwhelming limiting factor here, not the number of galaxies out there. The density of galaxies, finite speed of light and Creation are circular contradictions which have nothing to do with their argument against the paradox.

Mathematicians fail to understand that if the Universe was Created and finite in time, as they allege, then ‘the’ Universe would be an object with a definite boundary. All objects have shape and a boundary. What is beyond the alleged boundary of ‘the’ Universe? More space? More matter? God perhaps? Any such notion as the Creation of space and matter leads to ontological contradictions. Any sort of Creation, whether under the guise of God, the singularity, primeval atom, virtual particles, Quantum fluctuations, etc. is necessarily impossible, as explained in the following articles:


http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-BIG-LIE

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIBLE-Space-Matter-Motion-are-ETERNAL



Theory #2: Space is expanding.

Mathematicians have dogmatically decreed the Universe to be expanding. Hubble’s Law asserts that stars further away from us recede more quickly than closer stars. They have a higher recession velocity because space is allegedly expanding at a greater rate and pushing them apart quicker. Consequently, the light from these stars is more red-shifted than those closer to us. Since redshift results from an increase in wavelength (ala Doppler Sound Effect), they argue that light from distant stars has been so red-shifted that it’s no longer in the visible part of the spectrum. So we see no light coming from these stars, accounting for the dark regions of the night sky.


They may sound persuasive to the layman, but their fellow Mathematicians, Edward Harrison (Darkness at Night, 1987 Harvard University Press) and Paul Wesson (1989J. Brit. Astron. Soc.9910) have calculated the expansion of the Universe to diminish the intensity of starlight by only a factor of ~2. This is far short of the exponential factor of ~10^10 by which the night sky is darker than the surface of the Sun. This clearly contradicts the expansion of space and the Doppler Shift arguments. If the members of the same establishment contradict each other, then what does it say about their theories which are pushed as “proven truths” unto the unsuspecting public?


What’s hilarious is how the Deep Field Hubble photos show a huge number of very faint galaxies that are blue-shifted. Shouldn't these extremely distant galaxies be red-shifted after 13+ billion years of space expansion? Mathematicians are dumbfounded as to why these galaxies at the edge of the Universe are approaching us. Isn’t space at the edge of the Universe supposed to expand faster than the speed of light and redshift these galaxies? According to Inflation Theory, the further a galaxy is from us, the faster the recessional speed, and the larger its Doppler redshift. It is mathematically impossible for these very distant galaxies to be blue-shifted! Obviously Doppler Shift is not an indicator of expansion in the least bit, which renders their beloved Creationist theories of Big Bang & Inflation as unscientific:


“Only the most distant galaxies and those moving at speeds far above average emit light that arrives with a perceptible blue tinge.” – Jerry Coffey, Universe Today


We even have photos from the edge of the Universe where galaxies appear red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet or any color in-between, regardless of whether they are approaching or receding. Mathematicians attempt to double-talk around these issues with yet more theories:


Elliptical galaxies typically appear yellow-red, which is in contrast to the distinct blue tinge of mostspiral galaxies. In spirals, this blue color a colour emanates largely from the young, hot stars in their spiral arms.” -- Wiki


But the jury isn’t fooled! No matter what color of light these ellipticals and spirals emit, this color MUST absolutely redshift according to Inflation & Doppler theory. The jury will relentlessly pound this issue into their heads until they begin using their brains instead of their calculators. Mathematicians are speechless and cannot explain any of these observations. They prefer you don’t ask them these very painful questions. Their Doppler Shift theory is truly pathetic!

Using their Doppler nonsense, Mathematicians calculated the Milky Way galaxy’s Methuselah star, which is more formally known as HD 140283, to be older than the Universe at 16+ billion years old.

Furthermore, they claim that light from very distant galaxies isn’t reaching us because the Universe is expanding orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. Those galaxies are being pushed away from us at a rate > c. But the Hubble telescope, when taking a 10-night exposure, does indeed find more galaxies "in the darkest part of the sky”; close to the alleged “edge” of the Universe. Not only that, but with each new powerful telescope they launch, they are able to detect more and more previously undetectable galaxies. They grind better lenses, mirrors and employ better technology so they can see more VISIBLE LIGHT from the extreme depths of space. Why do we need such powerful telescopes to see this visible light? Why doesn’t it light up the night sky….even a wee bit? They pathetically contradict themselves!


In November 2012, NASA discovered the most distant galaxy ever, MACS0647-JD. “The object is observed 420 million years after the big bang…Its light has traveled 13.3 billion years to reach Earth.” (NASA: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/distance-record.html)

How can the “young light” from such a distant galaxy at the supposed “edge” of the Big Bang possibly be viewable within the visible spectrum? According to their theory, space expansion should have red-shifted its light deep into the invisible range by now! And since Big Bang is predicated on Doppler Shift, their castle in the sand is awash. What a contradictory mess…the public doesn’t deserve this nonsense!


Obviously their Doppler Shift theory is extremely flawed and not a reliable indicator of galactic advance or recession. Mathematicians are even debating amongst themselves that the blueshift of Andromeda may not indicate its advance toward us. And these are just tidbits of the countless contradictions within the Doppler Shift & Inflation theories. Buyer beware - educate yourself – gullibility is not intelligence!


But let’s be honest; anybody with critical reasoning skills who understands Physics can rationally explain why it is impossible for the Universe or for space to expand:


http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-Universe-is-NOT-Expanding


The Mathematicians assume that in a non-expanding eternal Universe, light reaching us from distant stars and galaxies would stay at the same emitted wavelength during its whole trip. They come to these ridiculous conclusions because they don’t have a mediator for light. They are perpetually lost in their contradictions because they have no rational Theory for light that can JUSTIFY their statements!

Later we explain the physical mechanism by which light redshifts and blueshifts in a non-expanding Universe. You will be surprised at Mother Nature’s simplistic mechanism for this phenomenon.

But let’s consider their key assertion: the red-shifting of light. What EXACTLY do they mean? What alleged medium stretched its wavelength? This is a key issue because it will either make or break their argument. If they cannot tell the audience in the Physics Conference what they mean by such an assertion, then their Doppler Shift and Inflation theories are worthless. In Physics we don’t accept statements like “nudge, nudge….wink, wink….ya know what I mean by light being red-shifted into longer wavelengths!” Sorry, perhaps this elusive and equivocating language is the norm in Religion, but not in Physics! If you cannot explain you aren’t doing Physics. You are doing Religion.


This article will present a physical mechanism to explain without contradictions why most of the galaxies appear red-shifted, while others appear blue or other colors in the visible spectrum. But before we can understand this mechanism, we will present a rational Hypothesis for light! As we’ll see in the next section, Mathematicians have concocted these ridiculous stabs at Olbers’ Paradox because they have a malleable Hypothesis for light.





THE MATHEMATICIAN’S MALLEABLE HYPOTHESIS FOR LIGHT


They have several clever tricks to convince you to swallow their theories. They propose that, depending on their particular line of argumentation, the mediator of light can either be a particle (i.e. 0D photon), ‘a’ wave (i.e. a concept) or ‘a’ wavicle (i.e. a concept). What do these 3 irreconcilable proposals for light have to do with reality? Humans cannot impose their contradictory notions and rules on reality. They need to follow the Scientific Method and first Hypothesize an entity that is physically capable of mediating all of the effects of light. The Theory will rationally explain the physical mechanism by which this entity mediates light phenomena. Physics is not about invoking ontologically different mediators for light whenever it suits your argument. That’s what they do in Religion.


Will the real mediator of light please stand up?


Is Light a Stream of Particles?

The mediator of light is not comprised of discrete 0D photons because matterless entities do not exist. Even a 3D photon cannot mediate the effects of light because such bullets are subject to collisions. Light-on-light experiments confirm that no collisions are possible because there is no constructive interference when laser beams cross each other. Bullets of light don’t scatter everywhere. None of the slit experiments or polarization can be explained with particles. Refraction can’t be explained either because it is impossible for a photon to magically speed-up to ‘c’ after it exits a prism. But most importantly, it is impossible for light to be a stream of discrete particles because such entities cannot simulate Maxwell’s equation: c = frequency x wavelength (c = ƒ λ). The particle hypothesis for light is dead. No such mediator can possibly account for light.


Is Light a Series of Waves or Wavicles?

As for waves and wavicles, they are not standalone entities. Waves are disturbances that only propagate within a medium. It is the medium itself that is ‘waving’ (i.e. transversely, longitudinally or torsionally). So obviously, the mediator for light is not ‘a’ wave. And ‘a’ wavicle is ontologically impossible because no entity can be a particle and ‘a’ wave at the same time. No such standalone entities as ‘waves’ can possibly exist. The wave & wavicle hypotheses for light are dead. In fact, Schrödinger's wave mechanics did not question nor dismiss the ontology or medium of these waves. But Schrödinger had to call this UNKNOWN medium something; so he referred to it as ‘psi’, from the Greek letter Ψ.


Mathematicians always use fancy Greek letters to mean: “I have no proposal for a rational mediator for that phenomenon. So please don’t ask me to explain the physical mechanism of that phenomenon!”



So, What’s Left of Their Doppler Shift Theory?

Now that we’ve unraveled the Mathematician’s malleable Hypothesis for light, we can understand why their Doppler Shift Theory is unjustifiable - it has no underlying mediator for light. Sound uses air as its medium of propagation. What medium does light use? It certainly can’t be air, so how can the Doppler Effect for Sound be applicable in such a medium-less system? What makes the system work if not a medium to act as a transport highway for light?

Furthermore, since Doppler Shift is purported be “a consequence of the expansion of space” (NASA: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/distance-record.html), such a proposal is ontologically impossible! Space is not an object, has no shape or border; and is impossible to expand. Obviously the Doppler Shift Theory is complete bunk because it cannot physically account for redshift, blueshift, or any other color/frequency shift observed.

Mathematicians are in the business of working with tautologies. Math is a pure tautology but fortunately, reality isn’t! Reality is not predicated on these subjective rules that humans decree in order to excuse their lack of understanding. When one decrees reality to be complex or irrational, he is telling you in no uncertain terms that it is “he” who is confused and irrational. He admits to not having spent the time to brainstorm the critical issues nor does he care to do so. Instead he wants you to swallow any ridiculous assertion he ascribes to reality, because after all: reality is mysterious and our interpretation of our observations prove it!

Science couldn’t care less about the subjectively-interpreted observations of self-righteous human apes. If it did, then the observations in the Bible would be Science. Science is divorced from human confusion and opinion. Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained with the Scientific Method, not with irrationalities. Intellectual honesty and objectivity is the protocol in Science. There is no magic in the Universe. Only lazy irrational humans propose magical 0D particles and conceptual waves for natural phenomena!





OLBERS’ PROPOSAL FOR THE UNIVERSE IS FATALLY FLAWED!


Let’s have a look at Olbers’ assumptions once again:


  1. Space is unbounded and limitless (as described by the term ‘infinite’).
  2. A homogeneous and isotropic Universe with stars uniformly distributed throughout unbounded space; i.e. no galaxies!
  3. The population of stars extends forever into limitless space, so every possible line of sight (i.e. pixel) in the sky ends on a star.


Assumption #1 is justifiable!

We can critically reason that space is not an object because space has no shape, no border/boundary or limit. For if it did, then what is outside this alleged border? More space? Maybe God? Maybe some magic? Space is boundless. It is contradictory to argue otherwise!



Assumption #2 is flawed!

Stars are not uniformly distributed throughout the Universe. Neither does the Universe look the same from all directions. Stars are clumped together into galactic islands we call “galaxies”. And galaxies are not uniformly distributed; their distances are varied and their distribution is unpredictable. God did not create a perfectly symmetrical, homogeneous and isotropic Universe. Any such claims are unjustifiably concocted by the idealistic nature of mankind.



Assumption #3 is flawed!

It is impossible for the population of stars to extend forever in boundless space. Space is the antithesis of matter because the Universe is a conceptual binary system: matter vs. no-matter (i.e. objects vs. space).

Any attempt to rationalize an unlimited (some say “infinite”) amount of matter will instantly contradict itself. The Universe cannot possibly be comprised of unlimited stars, galaxies or anything else. For if did, then there would be no space as every little bit of it would be a star. Stars would have no elbow room to move and would combine into one. In such a scenario, the Universe would be a conglomerated infinite star. But this is ontologically impossible because no such object can possibly exist. Why? Because “infinite” objects have no shape and no boundary – they are contradictory!


Object: that which has shape.

Space: that which lacks shape.


Now we can use these two words consistently (i.e. Scientifically). Matter cannot spontaneously lose Length, Width and Height and morph into space (i.e. nothing). Conversely, space cannot surreptitiously acquire Length, Width and Height in zero-time and morph into an object (matter). Matter not only has no way of inducing itself from the vacuum, but cannot leave space. Space has no border for matter to cross or exit.

Space is the largest prison never built. Not even God can cross over and escape that which has no boundaries! Poor God is trapped here together with the rest of us.

Therefore, the amount of matter in the Universe is constant. The Universe is the only conceivable perpetual machine. It is so because space has no boundaries. Matter not only cannot convert into space, but has literally 'nothing' to cross into – no boundary and no magical “dimension” where it can escape!

The population of stars certainly does not extend forever into unbounded space, as is tacitly assumed in order to formulate Olbers’ Paradox. This is the primary issue of contention from Mathematicians and Religionists. And these same individuals use Olbers’ Paradox to make their argument for Creation (Big Bang or God) by setting up a STRAWMAN argument to attack an eternal Universe. Mathematicians erroneously assume that an eternal Universe must be comprised of an “infinite” amount of stars. Infinities are irrational concepts and impossible in reality. Since the Universe is comprised of a CONSTANT amount of matter in unbounded space, it is impossible for every line of sight in the night sky to end on a star - unless of course, God systematically arranged all celestial objects around a firmament. Clearly, neither Olbers nor the Mathematicians after him were able to reason this important conclusion.


Conclusion: Once the critical issues are analyzed, Olbers’ Paradox gets reduced to a mere flawed proposal that has sent Mathematicians & Religionists on a wild goose chase for hundreds of years! Both groups have used the paradox as a vehicle to push their various theories of Creation. None of them have offered a correct answer to the problem, except for Thomas Digges and Isaac Newton!





THE SOLUTION TO OLBERS’ PARADOX IS PREDICATED ON DISTANCE!


Obviously, the night sky is about as bright as the Mathematicians that are staring at it! The question is “WHY?”


The reason why the night sky is dark has to do primarily with: DISTANCE! As light propagates across distances, it is affected by two physical mechanisms which make objects appear smaller and simultaneously fade their light near or beyond the invisible spectrum:


  1. Convergence of Light Rays: Light rays converge and superimpose over long distances. This dramatically reduces the quantity of effective light signals propagating towards the Earth and explains why objects appear so small in the sky, requiring the use of telescopes. Many assume that light rays cone-out over large distances. If they did, then objects should appear larger over distance. The cone effect or “spill” is characteristic of the architectural properties of the light source assembly, be it a bulb, laser diode, flashlight reflector, etc. Light propagates rectilinearly, so light “rays” have no choice but to converge together as they propagate from their source to their target object when the distance between them increases.
  2. Tired Light: Light propagates at lower wavelengths (i.e. redshifts) over distance as verified by the Harvard Tower Experiment. Tired Light Theory accounts for the blueshift and redshift for approaching and receding galaxies. The shifting of EM frequency explains why light fades over large distances, even when considering the direction and speed of galaxies.





NEWTON SOLVED OLBERS’ PARADOX BY CONTRADICTING ITS CORE ASSUMPTIONS


What most people are not aware of is that Thomas Digges and Isaac Newton already solved the paradox by justifying the dark night sky. They both realized that the effect of fading light is predicated on the simple concept of DISTANCE! Their only problem was that they had no physical mechanism to justify their solution.


The answer, said Digges, is that most of them are too far away to be seen. Although Digges included this solution only as a “throw away” line in his book, other proposers of the paradox came to the same conclusion even though Digges’ offered no accompanying physical explanation.


“Of which lights Celestial it is to be thought that we only behold such as are in the inferior parts of the same Orb, and as they are higher, so seem they of less and lesser quantity, even till our sight, being not able farther to reach or conceive, the greatest part rest, by reason of their wonderful distance, invisible unto us.” – Thomas Digges (Perfect Description of the Celestial Spheres)


Newton argued that stars are simply too far away for the majority of their light to reach us directly because light fades over distances. He also reasoned what the ancients already understood - that the Universe had to be “infinite” in space - meaning that space is unbounded.

Newton reasoned that the night sky is not as bright as the Sun because matter cannot be infinite. Instead, matter must be lumped into “great masses” of islands (we call galaxies) that are scattered over great distances. Because of the vast distances to these scattered galaxies, light fades as it propagates toward us.


“if the matter was evenly diffused through an infinite space, it would never convene into one mass but some of it convene into one mass and some into another so as to make an infinite number of great masses scattered at great distances from one to another throughout all the infinite space.” – Isaac Newton (Correspondence, 234)


Like Digges, Newton had no physical mechanism to account for the convergence of light rays and their fading (i.e. frequency shifting) over distance. But nonetheless, both he and Digges had the correct solution to the problem.


In fact, what Newton did in his analysis was to reason the existence of galaxies. That is a profound argument coming from that era. He killed Olbers’ assumption #2 (a homogeneous Universe with stars evenly distributed; i.e. no galaxies!) and assumption #3 (every possible line of sight in the sky ends on the surface of a star). What more is left of Olbers’ Paradox?


Olber’s assumptions are untenable; and so is his irrational conclusion! The existence of a finite amount of scattered galaxies instantly destroys Olbers’ Paradox. So just what is the argument from Mathematicians? What does Olbers’ Paradox have to do with a Big Bang or even with an eternal universe? Absolutely nothing!

Unlike the thoroughly debunked Doppler Theory of light, the EM Rope Hypothesis coupled with the Theory of Tired Light provides a physical mechanism which rationally explains why light can shift its frequency into our invisible range over very large distances.





THEORY OF TIRED LIGHT ACCOUNTS FOR FREQUENCY- SHIFT


Mathematicians have never been able to explain the Theory of Tired Light because they never had a rational Hypothesis for the mediator of light. To understand the phenomenon of light you need to understand that it is impossible for there to be any discrete particles, waves or particle-waves (wavicles) in the Universe, as explained previously. How can a laser physically affect that wall from a distance? Only an extended mediator from an atom comprising the laser to an atom comprising the wall can account for Mach’s Principle and rationally explain physical Action-At-a-Distance. The only rational conclusion is that all atoms in the Universe are necessarily interconnected via a mediating entity that is responsible for these seemingly “magical” Action-At-a-Distance phenomena we call gravity and light. These are physical phenomena; mediated by real objects; not magical incorporeal concepts.

Only a rope can pull a dog towards you (i.e. gravity) and only a rope can simulate the c = ƒ λ property of light - nothing else; and certainly not particles, waves or wavicles. A rational Hypothesis for the mediator of light is the proposal that all atoms are interconnected via a 2-stranded DNA-like rope entity. We call this entity: the EM rope! We also use the “light ray” terminology to refer to an individual EM rope in this article.

When an atom Quantum Jumps and torques the EM rope (just like you torque a clothesline), an EM (electro-magnetic) torsion-wave signal is sent down the EM ropes to all the atoms in another galaxy, and to all the atoms in the Universe. These EM torsion-waves physically affect the receiving atoms (by inducing motion); be it the atoms comprising our retinas or the atoms comprising a rock. This is the phenomenon we call LIGHT along with its rational justification for Action-At-a-Distance (AAAD)! From Bohr’s Quantum Jump Theory, atoms generate light signals between them when their electron shells pump back and forth, and thus continue to emit torque-waves consistent with the Mössbauer Effect (i.e. recoilless emission).

NOTE: The attentive reader should have picked up on the fact that this model explains the mystical ‘principle’ of Special Relativity where light has the same speed irrespective of the motion of the source. As two objects move, light signals sent to each other via their interconnecting mediums have independent propagation from the motion of the objects themselves. The Mathematicians of Relativity don’t have an answer for this phenomenon; only contradictory magic. How pathetic is that? I mean, this principle is the bread & butter of SR!


Q: How does the Rope Hypothesis for light account for the shifting of light frequency outside our visible spectrum? What is the physical mechanism?


As galaxies move closer together or further apart, they respectively COMPRESS or STRETCH the link-lengths of the two-stranded EM ropes interconnecting them. An atom torques its EM ropes and emits EM torsion-waves down the ropes to every single atom in the Universe. As these EM torsion-waves travel farther into space, they become red-shifted towards longer wavelengths. This rationally explains the “wave nature” of light and accounts for all of Maxwell’s equations.


You can understand the underlying mechanism by trying this experiment at home: Tie a rope to a wall and torque it from a distance. The torsion wave instantly travels to the wall. Now tie the other end of the rope to another wall. You will verify that the further you walk from the ends of the rope and to its center, the links become longer and longer (i.e. longer wavelength = redshift). All rope entities exhibit this “unravelling” phenomenon around their centers. So if a single rope is interconnecting one hydrogen atom in a distant galaxy to one in our galaxy, it is expected that somewhere in the middle, this rope is red-shifted to longer wavelengths. This is a STATIC phenomenon exhibited near the middle of all ropes. There is no motion involved in this phenomenon because this is what a rope at rest exhibits. And this is consistent with Pound & Rebka’s Harvard Tower Experiment in which they demonstrated that wavelength (i.e. rope link-length) increases as the EM wave propagates outward from Earth. To describe the phenomenon, Pound & Rebka used the Planck Hypothesis (E = hv) to argue that light leaving the Earth loses energy to the gravitational field and gains energy when approaching it. The change in the concept of energy has a physical mechanism via the Rope Hypothesis that rationally explains this phenomenon. This loss/gain of energy physically corresponds to the respective stretching/compressing of the link-lengths of the EM rope between atoms.


The phenomenon exhibited by the Harvard Tower Experiment provides us with a physical explanation for the Tired Light Theory proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who attempted to account for the redshift of light in proportion to the distances of galaxies. He was unable to physically explain the redshift/blueshift mechanism with Tired Light because he had no hypothesis for a light mediator that could physically mediate wavelength-shift. ‘Particle’ and ‘wave’ proposals for light cannot possibly offer an explanation for Tired Light, much less for the thoroughly-debunked Doppler Theory.


This is what physically happens to any rope entity when it is pushed together (i.e. galaxies approaching = blueshift) or pulled apart (i.e. galaxies receding = redshift) while EM torsion-waves (i.e. light) propagate from either end of this rope medium. It has the direct effect of changing the wavelength and hence the frequency of the EM torsion-waves we call light. But the speed of light ‘c’ always remains CONSTANT because the rope medium (i.e. transport highway) for light hasn’t changed. The speed of light ‘c’ is always constant and necessarily medium-dependent, just like the speed of torsion signals across different physical substances.


Obviously there are distant galaxies in our Universe where their EM torsion-wave frequencies are outside our visible spectrum; whether red-shifted or blue-shifted. In addition, the farther galaxies are from Earth, their interconnecting ropes converge and superimpose, effectively reducing the amount of EM ropes and torsion-waves propagating to the Earth. That's the reason why the humongous Andromeda Galaxy looks like a dot in the night sky, while more distant ones can’t even be seen with the naked eye.


Tired Light Theory and the convergence of distant light “rays” (i.e. EM ropes) provide us with a rational mechanism to justify why light from distant galaxies falls outside our visible spectrum. This is the physical justification for why the night sky of an ETERNAL UNIVERSE is not ablaze like the Sun!





THE BACKGROUND RADIATION IS NOT FROM A MYTHICAL BIG BANG CREATION!


The idea of a “light-free” night sky where “dark” is synonymous with “no light” (as many believe), is not only an illusion, but completely impossible! Of course, the night sky “appears” dark to us because our sensory system has certainly fooled us - big time! A dark (as opposed to a bright) night sky certainly doesn’t mean that these EM torsion-wave light signals aren’t reaching us. In fact, they are stimulating every single atom in our bodies as we speak; not to mention all the atoms in the Universe. Our instruments can detect a portion of this “Background EM Radiation”; which incidentally, has absolutely nothing to do with an alleged Big Bang or any sort of Creation.

This phenomenon we call “Background Radiation” is the product of all the atoms in the Universe “Quantum-Jumping” and torqueing the EM ropes interconnecting them. This propagates EM torsion-wave light signals between all the EM ropes. We detect this effect term it: EM radiation! An atom sends an EM torsion-wave signal to all the receiving atoms in the Universe, which in turn, re-transmit the signal (albeit, somewhat dampened by the atoms) back to the sender and to all other atoms in the Universe. This Ping-Pong effect of EM torsion-waves also provides us with a physical explanation for the Principle of Ray Reversibility (PRR) of light. It also explains all the radio phenomena, quantum entanglement, polarization and slit-experiments without contradictions.

Again, since the majority of these cosmic EM torsion-wave frequencies (Background Radiation) are beyond the visible response of our petty retinas, it doesn’t mean that they magically come from an alleged Big Bang Creation. Atoms are in perpetual motion and incessantly Quantum Jump; sending EM torsion-waves between them. Atomic motion is eternal, that’s why we have an EM light spectrum…not because of a Big Bang. The ridiculous conclusion of a mythical Creation is only posited by Mathematicians and their allies, the Catholic Church (Priest Georges Lemaître et all). These folks are divorced from reality. They are more interested in tautologies and authority than using the Scientific Method to propose a rational Hypothesis for a mediator of light.





WHAT IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE?


From our foregoing analysis, we can rationally justify the Universe to have the following structure and properties:


  1. The Universe is eternal. It had no beginning and will have no end. Rocks, gases, stars and atoms recognize no past or future, which are conceptions of a brain. The Universe only functions in present, the NOW, and as such, the Universe is effectively the only non-entropic perpetual recycling machine – all matter is recycled. It has no origin because all forms of Creation are ontologically impossible. It has no ending or death because matter has no ability to rub elbows against space, grind to a stop, die or vanish. Matter “floats” in space with perpetual attractions & collisions. Matter is eternal.
  2. Space lacks shape; it’s not an object. Space is a synonym for nothing, void, vacuum. Space is formless, shapeless, frictionless, unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish– it is already nothing!
  3. Matter and space cannot be created or destroyed. Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and morph into matter. Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
  4. The population of stars certainly does not extend forever into unbounded space as is tacitly assumed in order to formulate Olbers’ Paradox. All matter is clumped here and there in galactic islands we call “galaxies”.
  5. There is a constant amount of matter in the Universe at all times. Galaxies assemble and disassemble via various mechanisms. There are a finite amount of galaxies in the Universe.
  6. Matter cannot escape or “transcend” space because space has no boundary. Space has no structure, surface, or edge to cross. All matter is trapped in “here” for eternity. Even God cannot escape space!
  7. The Universe looks similar to what it did 5000 trillion years ago and will continue to do so forever because all matter is recycled. There will always be galaxies with stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, etc. I mean, what more do you want? There are no ghosts, spirits, souls or black magic. Creation, Design and End-of-Times are ludicrous notions invented by human apes!





CONCLUSION


The solution to Olber’s Paradox cannot be rationalized with a Big Bang, Doppler redshift or expanding Universe; but with the fact that all matter is clumped into galaxies separated by vast distances (as Newton proposed). Mathematicians were too busy doing irrelevant calculations to reason out the ramifications of this fundamental fact.


Light signals from celestial objects gradually fade over distances. This is KEY to understanding why the night sky is not ablaze like the Sun. But let’s face it, there are probably celestial objects in every direction of the night sky, so their light signals have no choice but to reach us and penetrate our bodies. And they do, whether in the visible or invisible range (i.e. background radiation).

Let’s consider Centaurus A, the 5th brightest galaxy in the night sky. Why does it look like a very faint dot with the naked eye?

Like all distant galaxies, the light emitted by Centaurus A is affected by two physical mechanisms: one responsible for its “small size” and the other for its “dim light”.


  1. Convergence of EM ropes (small size of galaxy): The farther galaxies are from Earth, the more their interconnecting EM ropes converge and superimpose, effectively “narrowing” the size of the EM light signal highway towards the Earth. That's the reason why Centaurus Aand the humongous Andromeda Galaxy look like tiny dots in the night sky. And that’s the reason why the most distant galaxy discovered by end of 2012, MACS0647-JD, is impossible to see with the naked eye and even with our most powerful telescopes. The EM ropes extending from MACS0647-JD to Earth are so converged and superimposed, that it was discovered with the help ofClusterLensingAndSupernova survey withHubble(CLASH). This system uses foreground galaxy clustersas cosmic telescopes to redirect the light behind them and effectively magnify the image of the MACS0647-JD galaxy.
  2. Tired Light (dim light from galaxy): The links-lengths of the EM ropes binding the atoms between the Milky Way and distant galaxies are over-extended, increasing their link-length (redshift). This is a static phenomenon which explains why most of the galaxies appear red-shifted or even outside our visible spectrum. This is the mechanism that fades light over distance. As galaxies move apart, the EM ropes extend further and their light signals redshift even more into the invisible spectrum. As galaxies move closer, the EM ropes compress their link-lengths and light signals get blue-shifted even more into the invisible spectrum. The EM ropes criss-cross the Earth from every direction in the night sky. If we cannot see light in a particular direction it’s because the EM rope wavelengths are either STRETCHED (red-shifted) or COMPRESSED (blue-shifted) beyond our visible range. This is the physical mechanism responsible for the fading of light across distances.


The insignificant (and arrogant) human apes that happen to live on this planet just can’t get over the fact that they aren’t the center of the Universe. The workings of the Universe do NOT revolve around our limited sensory system and our contradictory interpretations of phenomena. Reality is objective and non-contradictory. It can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained with the Scientific Method (Hypothesis & Theory). This is the only reliable and objective field of study.



More by this Author


Comments 41 comments

Andy1995 3 years ago

Fantastic Hub!!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Thanks Andy, glad you found it useful.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

I agree that all matter is recycled! What a great way to state this. I've always said that all things exist now, have always existed and will continue to exist infinitely. Now I can say that all things (matter) are infinitely recycled.

I fail to understand, however, how people continuously insist on a "beginning" and stubbornly reiterate that the universe must have come from "somewhere" or "something" or even "somebody" (God).

Like stars that do not light up every pixel of the universe, so goes the ability of most people to "see" the infinite universe. You have explained Olber's paradox well.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Austinstar,

“I agree that all matter is recycled!”

Sure, but it’s not an issue of agreement. Politics, authority & popularity are divorced from Physics. When it is ontologically impossible for matter to lose L, W, H and morph into “no-thing”, then it goes without saying that matter is eternally recycled and assembled into new objects. It’s likely that a portion of matter in your body once inhabited the body of an alien. After all, it had all eternity to do so.

“all things exist now”

Exactly. Existence is a static concept. All objects exist in the present; at the cutting edge of universal events. They didn’t exist some time ago, and certainly won’t exist some time in the future as the object disassembles and gets recycled into something else.

“I fail to understand, however, how people continuously insist on a "beginning" and stubbornly reiterate that the universe must have come from "somewhere" or "something" or even "somebody" (God).”

It’s ingrained in the nature of all sentient beings, even in all aliens out there. The traits of needing to be special, powerful, unique, the center of attention and the center of the Universe are ingrained into the evolutionary intelligence of all beings. Even the allegedly “dumb” animals (some are smarter than many humans, btw) exhibit the same traits. We are special….so we HAD to be created one way or another….either by a God, or by a Singularity. The majority will never get past this mentality.

Unfortunately, this mentality is not only limited to Traditional Religionists. And this is where humanity has failed as an allegedly “intellectually evolved” species. Our educational system, even though it’s purported to be objective….has failed us because it pushes these same primitive 50,000 year old ideas down our throats….but dresses them up in a veil of “Physics”. Case in point:

“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! The question is, is there evidence for that? That’s what we tried to debate. So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. And it may, it may indeed, ultimately, we may find that it’s required. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Lawrence Krauss, Mathematical Physicist

Creation is the status quo! It is parroted by almost all atheists and Mathematicians. They obviously have the math equations to prove their dogma that it is possible for a God without a Bible to have created the Universe. Furthermore, they tell you that to argue against this dogma, is to be un-Scientific. They tolerate no dissidents!

Obviously, there is NO hope for humanity.

“Like stars that do not light up every pixel of the universe, so goes the ability of most people to "see" the infinite universe.”

Indeed, I phrased this exact statement “less offensively” in the article so as to be politically correct:

“Obviously, the night sky is about as bright as the Mathematicians that are staring at it! The question is “WHY?”


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

"Obviously, there is NO hope for humanity."

There is no need to have hope either. What will be, will be. We are entirely too puny intellectually to bother figuring it out. "Live long and prosper" is about all mere mortals can achieve. Enjoy.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 3 years ago from Heaven

Did not read. Fatfist when are you going to question evolution religion?

Atheist nothing is eternal big bang created space and time.

Theist universe cannot be eternal god made it.

Atheist man evolve he cannot be eternal.

Theist man was created by god he cannot be eternal.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

PrometheusKid.....ask your psychiatrist to give you a different prescription. Your current one ain't working.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 3 years ago from Heaven

I think I'm going to become Mormon this week.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Fatfist, do you understand Zero Point Energy? If so, I'd like to see a hub about it. It sounds like the answer to the energy problem.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 3 years ago from Heaven

Zero point energy exist fact.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

So, PK will you do a hub about ZPE?


Luis 3 years ago

Contradiction on this site.

Observe:

1) ''I would stay away from these 2 criminals [Albert Einstein and the architect of the Rope Hypothesis] if I were you, Luis.''

2) Everything in this article, where you cite and defend the Rope Hypothesis, whose artitect you warned me to steer clear of.

What part of this contradiction am I supposed to take seriously?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“What part of this contradiction am I supposed to take seriously?”

Where is the contradiction you allege? Do you even understand what a contradiction is?

Here, let me educate you, Luis….because in your Church, it was all fun & games: i.e., giving wedgies to the choir boys, pulling your Priest’s jock strap during sermon, pinching each other’s butts, tying each other on a wooden plank and ticking their privates with feathers, rubbing your privates with each other….etc. This is why haven’t learned the basics. There are times for fun & games, and there are times when you need to get serious about your education. You’re a neophyte trying to dabble his toes in Logic, Philosophy and Science.

A contradiction of proposition P is established when P and not-P is asserted. You can bellyache irrelevancies all you want….but you have yet to show a single contradiction. But keep trying….read harder…..but not between the lines.

Remember: P and not-P, where P is a proposition, not an “imagination”. Understand?


Luis 3 years ago

The word I should have been going for was 'hypocrisy'.

''You can bellyache irrelevancies all you want''

More hypocrisy. Observe:

''Here, let me educate you, Luis….because in your Church, it was all fun & games: i.e., giving wedgies to the choir boys, pulling your Priest’s jock strap during sermon, pinching each other’s butts, tying each other on a wooden plank and ticking their privates with feathers, rubbing your privates with each other….etc. This is why haven’t learned the basics. There are times for fun & games, and there are times when you need to get serious about your education. You’re a neophyte trying to dabble his toes in Logic, Philosophy and Science.''

Irrelevancies throughout + devoid of content relevant to the topic at hand. And earlier: a bunch of sanctimonious opinions about Gaede. I'm not interested in your connections to the Miami exile community. That's your own business. The question is why you're filling these discussions to the brim with irrelevancies and then whining about them when they emanate from others? What gives?

Which brings me to the main point: I was seeking clarification on why you're being a hypocrite. Namely, you spout irrelevancies about Gaede's naughties with respect to the US government and tell me to steer clear of him (without any rational reasons), then you help yourself to this same guy's ideas and even the diagrams from his website. What gives?

''Remember: P and not-P, where P is a proposition, not an “imagination”. Understand?''

Sure. What does this have to do with your hypocrisy?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“The word I should have been going for was 'hypocrisy'”

Oh, is that an emotional term that’s supposed to twist the arm of the reader in the hopes of getting them to buy into the alleged CONTRADICTION which you couldn’t defend prior? So you try this tactic instead and see where it leads? Does “hypocrisy” have an OBJECTIVE meaning or does it resolve to one’s opinion?

Hmmm…I wonder….let’s see you either define it, or in the alternative, continue to whine and bellyache just like you did when you folded under questioning regarding the term “contradiction”.

Hypocrisy:________

Please define this term objectively….if you can, that is. Otherwise, feel free to whine like a little girl when your opinions of “hypocrisy” don’t work out for you.

“The question is why you're filling these discussions to the brim with irrelevancies and then whining about them when they emanate from others? What gives?”

Exactly what I was going to ask you…..

“then you help yourself to this same guy's ideas”

Ummm….you mean like others help themselves with Einstein’s ideas, even though Einstein was a fraudster who beat the crap out of his wife on a daily basis? Why are you accusing me and not posting these same accusations on millions of sites on the Internet having to do with Einstein? Why don’t you go accuse the mainstream scientific community who push Einstein’s ideas, even though Einstein was a criminal? Why didn’t you call your teacher a “hypocrite” when he taught you about Einstein in high school? Perhaps these accusations of hypocrisy (an opinionated term) are nothing more than opinions from biased human apes who want to protect their own religion via diversion tactics.

Got any other magical opinionated terms you wanna throw in here? We can play this game all day long until you get it thru your head that your opinions are worthless.


Luis 3 years ago

Hi fatfist,

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. If not, well...drugs must be involved.

I came close to terminating my correspondence with you, given your insistence upon being rude for no discernable reason. I can't be bothered getting into another tedious bout of word definition. When I said you were being hypocritical, I obviously meant it in the everyday sense of prescribing a course of action for someone else that you yourself refuse to partake in. Using Geade's ideas and then telling me to ''stay away from Gaede'' is a case of trolling, but if it's sincerely meant, it's an example of hypocrisy which I don't have time for (don't worry, I'm using 'time' here metaphorically). Don't care whether or not I can ''objectively'' define hypocrisy, since it's a word for everyday parlance, just like the words you've littered your bellyaching diatribes with, like ''bias'' and ''idiot''. So, I won't be playing this little game. I won't be returning to this page again. Sorry, can't be bothered.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

If you want to discuss science rather than troll, then join our fb group.


Vinny 3 years ago

You've got problem, Luis. Seek help.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

I'm speechless. This is the best article on cosmology I have ever read. I guess everything is connected after all! The only thing I struggled with is visualizing/understanding the EM ropes, their convergence and superimposition. So they are some sort of object like DNA? Could they be discovered using an instrument?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“I guess everything is connected after all”

There is no other option. Discrete particles are impossible since they cannot mediate attraction, action-at-a-distance, light, magnetism, gravity, the double-slit experiment, nor any other phenomenon.

“I struggled with is visualizing/understanding the EM ropes, their convergence and superimposition.”

Consider a rope made of 2 strands…similar to twined DNA. The Hypothesis is that every atom in your body is connected to every other atom in the universe via these ropes. A torsion signal on the rope is actually a light signal that travels with speed 'c' along the rope to its destination…..like from a star to you. So…. the further a star is away from you, the more the ropes converge over distance. This is the reason why objects look smaller the further they are away from you. Think about it…..do a mock-up model with ropes and visualize it.

If a galaxy is so far away that it looks like a dot even with our most powerful telescopes, then it goes without saying that these light signals (or ropes) have superimposed with one another. This is readily evident when we shine 2 lasers beams at each other….they cross each other without any interference whatsoever. The Rope Hypothesis is consistent with that phenomenon because they go through each other without interference.

“Could they be discovered using an instrument?”

Impossible. They are what mediates light. You cannot “see” the object that you require for light. Reality cannot be proven with the observations stemming from an arrogant ape’s sensory system. Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained. A phenomenon of nature is only amenable to rational explanations…..not faith, belief, observations, truth or proof.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

Consider a rope made of 2 strands…similar to twined DNA. The Hypothesis is that every atom in your body is connected to every other atom in the universe via these ropes. A torsion signal on the rope is actually a light signal that travels with speed 'c' along the rope to its destination…..like from a star to you. So…. the further a star is away from you, the more the ropes converge over distance. This is the reason why objects look smaller the further they are away from you. Think about it…..do a mock-up model with ropes and visualize it.

If a galaxy is so far away that it looks like a dot even with our most powerful telescopes, then it goes without saying that these light signals (or ropes) have superimposed with one another. This is readily evident when we shine 2 lasers beams at each other….they cross each other without any interference whatsoever. The Rope Hypothesis is consistent with that phenomenon because they go through each other without interference.

So in a far away galaxy the light dampens since it gets concentrated into one rope which yet are many ropes like lines converging?

But the Sun is closer so there is enough distance for EM ropes to converge before reaching you on the planet???

The hypothesis is the best I have ever seen. Heck its readily reasonable. Light simply fades with distance all you Einsteins!!!!

I still don't get the distinction between mediator and phenomenon though because I am dumb. So the EM ropes are an object but you cannot ever possibly observe them since they mediate the phenomenon of light which we all depend upon to see in the first place?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“So in a far away galaxy the light dampens since it gets concentrated into one rope”

Light doesn’t get concentrated because amplitude doesn’t increase. Remember: luminosity fades proportional to the inverse square of the distance. What happens is that all those highways of light (i.e. ropes) superimpose and we effectively have fewer of them torquing.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

of course.

I still understand the EM ropes and the relation to fading though. I never had a mind for physics. Intellegence is boundless but we are all unique.

But I will get it eventually. I think I need to take a break. I am getting spread to thin by doing too much at once. :)

Thanks.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

fatfist,

I have a little better understanding of the EM ropes.

The fundamental assumption is that all atoms in the Universe are interconnected.

Some questions which I would be grateful to have answered:

1. How is it that the ropes remain taut when objects change distances; closer vs. further away.

2. How is it that the ropes do not entangle?

Third question is a hypothetical. Let's just say matter had a primal form: atoms prior to any stars or galaxies. They are all connected but they are not clustered into complex objects, such as a star. How is it that these could tug one another?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“How is it that the ropes remain taut when objects change distances; closer vs. further away”

There is tension in the whole interconnected network of atoms. This is what causes gravitation, the attraction of atoms. The rope just gets reeled in. An atom is a spool of EM rope.

“How is it that the ropes do not entangle?”

The EM rope has the property to pass through each other. This is exactly what light does. Take 2 lasers and sweep their beams together. Notice how they pass through each other without any interference. The EM rope model is consistent with natural phenomena.

“How is it that these could tug one another?”

Atoms are in eternal motion which perpetually maintains tension in the network by reeling in all other atoms. If motion ceases, so does gravitation.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

excellent consistency. Thank you.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

I think came up with my first explanation using the EM rope theory. Why is space so friggen cold and yet lo and behold its hot on Earth's surface? The ropes mediate light from the surface of the Sun to the surface of the Earth. From object to object. And space is nothing.

Also I want to quote my favorite German Catholic mystic in favor of the fundamental assumption that all atoms are interconnected:

I saw the interior, the organs of man as if in the flesh as well as their relations with one another, from the stars down to the tiniest living thing. All exert an influence on man. He is connected with all of them; (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mysteries of the Old Testament).

An uneducated German peasant turned nun is more intelligent than Einstein.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"An uneducated German peasant turned nun is more intelligent than Einstein."

A crack whore is more intelligent than Einstein!


nicholashesed 3 years ago

Cheers on that!!!


sekharpal 2 years ago

"“I guess everything is connected after all”

There is no other option. Discrete particles are impossible since they cannot mediate attraction, action-at-a-distance, light, magnetism, gravity, the double-slit experiment, nor any other phenomenon."

But this is pure mysticism, because mystics have said the same thing repeatedly. Here is a quote from Bertrand Russell: "The doctrine of interpenetration, according to which things are not really separate, but are merely so conceived by the analytic intellect, is to be found in every mystic, Eastern or Western, from Parmenides to Mr. Bradley."

(Book: Skeptical Essays, 1928 Edition, Chapter: Philosophy in twentieth century, Page 69)

Here is another quote:

"All things by immortal power,

Near and far

Hiddenly

To each other linked are,

That thou canst not stir a flower

Without troubling of a star."

- Francis Thompson, Book: The Mistress of Vision, Poems (1913)


nicholashesed 2 years ago

sekharpal,

Mysticism and mystics have to do with God, religion, theology, etc.

So you are using a misnomer in this context. You are misusing that word. That concept relates a secret God + Man relationship.

Plenty of rational folk have reasonably assumed continuity in Mother Nature. This has NOTHING to do with mysticism:

"Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.'" (From Notes on Robert Grosseteste's De Luce)

"Bohr and Heisenberg were separated from Schrodinger by basic philosophical convictions and they were unable to reach common ground from which to consider the atom. Each of them accepted and used the same body of experimental evidence, but they could not agree on the conceptual means to embrace the evidence. Schrodinger looked at the natural world and saw continuity, so he was intellectually offended by energy states and quantum jumps." (From Hydrogen, the Essential Element)

Parmenides was not a mystic and he thought all things were connected:

"Nor is it divisible, since it all alike is. Nor is there any more of it here than there, to hinder it from holding together, nor any less of it, but it is all a plenum, full of what-is. Therefore, it is all continuous, for what-is touches what-is. . . "(Peri Physis)

"He welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy." (Basil, Hexemeron, Homily II)


nicholashesed 2 years ago

The sun appears to be poured down, and in all directions indeed it is diffused, yet it is not effused. For this diffusion is extension: Accordingly its rays are called Extensions [aktines] because they are extended [apo tou ekteinesthai]. But one may judge what kind of a thing a ray is, if he looks at the sun's light passing through a narrow opening into a darkened room, for it is extended in a right line, and as it were is divided when it meets with any solid body which stands in the way and intercepts the air beyond; but there the light remains fixed and does not glide or fall off. Such then ought to be the out-pouring and diffusion of the understanding, and it should in no way be an effusion, but an extension, and it should make no violent or impetuous collision with the obstacles which are in its way; nor yet fall down, but be fixed and enlighten that which receives it. For a body will deprive itself of the illumination, if it does not admit it. (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Eight)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

sekharpal : “But this is pure mysticism, because [Bertrand Russell and other Religionists said so!]”

Talking about mysticism coming from pure lunatic nutcases, Bertrand Russell beats all others on the planet hands down. This retarded poo-poo head is so obsessed with mysticism, that he claims that all the terms of language are said to EXIST. Therefore, God, Flying Macaroni Monster, Easter Bunny, Cinderella, Spiderman, married-bachelors, spirits, souls, ghosts, Zeus, Horus, Jesus, tribar, ….all exist, according to YOUR mystic Russell.

"Being is that which belongs to every conceivable term, to every possible object, of thought-in short to everything that can possibly occur in any proposition, true or false, and to all such propositions themselves. Being belongs to whatever can be counted. If A be any term that can be counted as one, it is plain that A is something, and therefore that A is. 'A is not' must always be either false or meaningless. For if A were nothing, it could not be said not to be ; 'A is not' implies that there is a term A whose being is denied, and hence that A is. Thus unless 'A is not' be an empty sound, it must be false. Whatever A may be, it certainly is. Numbers, the Homeric gods, relations, chimeras and four-dimensional spaces all have being, for if they were not entities of a kind, we could make no propositions about them. Thus being is a general attribute of everything, and to mention anything is to show that it is.”

pp. 449-450. Bertrand Russell - The Principles of Mathematics - New York, W. W. Norton Company, 1903, second edition 1937.

Talk about the ultimate self-pwn, sekharpal.

But if a MYSTIC like you, sekharpal, is willing to drop his mystic Religion and talk rationally, you should understand that it is impossible to mediate PULL (i.e. gravity) with discrete particles. Once you graduate into Science, you will understand why all atoms are necessarily interconnected. I hope your Priest allows you leave the Church of Mysticism once in a while and embrace reality.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mystics need to get their retarded quotes from other than Russell, the King of all Mystics.....perhaps they should try Mickey Mouse.

Regardless....interconnected matter is nothing new in Science.

"If light takes several years to reach us from a distant star, it is no longer on the star, nor is it on the earth. It must be somewhere, and supported, so to speak, by some material agency." -- Poincare


nicholashesed 2 years ago

Hey? :D

And all this time I thought Russell was rational.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Russell was a quack! He should have been tied up and institutionalized.

One of the many disturbing examples of contradictory ontology out there can be found in the writings of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the eminent British logician and philosopher of the 20th century. Russell, an atheist himself, once claimed that:

“If everything must have ‘a’ cause, then God must have ‘a’ cause. If there can be anything without ‘a’ cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.....There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without ‘a’ cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about ‘the’ First Cause.” -- Bertrand Russell (Why I am not a Christian)

It’s obvious that the Law of Causality as applied to Creation even eluded the much praised Bertrand Russell. Even Russell, a famous mathematician and logician, did NOT understand the basics of Causality and ontology. For if he did, he would not have made such a silly childish argument against God being ‘the’ First Cause. He was blind to these fatal ontological contradictions in his above statements.

Such a smart person should have pointed out that Causality requires at minimum 2 objects: the mediator and the target. Only a mediator, like God, can possibly perform the verb we call: create. He should have spent a lot more time thinking about and understanding the Law of Causality. He gets a failing grade.

G.W.F Hegel said: “Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion.” In other words, all matter perpetually pulls each other and all phenomena is classified as matter in motion.

Q: So how can matter pull each other?

A: The same way you pull your dog or your wife with a leash!

The opposing assumption is separability, the “popular” mathematical abstraction that motion could occur without matter. Matterless motion is especially popular among Mathematical Physicists, theologians, and logical positivists like Bertrand Russell. Ergo their irrational Godless Self-Creation!

Logical positivism (also called logical empiricism and neo-positivism) is a school of philosophy that combines empiricism – the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world – with mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs and deductions in epistemology. The doctrines included the opposition to all conceptual physics, especially ontology and critical thinking & rationality. Their foundation explicitly supported the idea that abstract concepts perform actions in reality.


nicholashesed 2 years ago

*thumbs up*

And I know that logical positivism influenced Bohr and Heisenberg.

a lot of that nonsense came out of Vienna in the 20s. Those Viennese were traumatized by WWI and just started making up all these systems: Logical Positivism, Nazism, Zionism, Quantum, and so on. They cared more about their schools or systems than reality. Then they influenced the world through rhetoric.


DanielD2 2 years ago

Are you absolutely sure that space is not something? Einstein's general relativity equations seem to show that space bends and prove that nothing is really actually something with substance---implying that space is a finite/limited. Are you sure that you are not assuming unjustifiably that space is "nothing" and unbounded ?... in the interest of leaving the door open to new discoveries and confirmations by experiment, is it possible that space is indeed something which has a boundary between it and what is not space? (I am not claiming to know what that might be). Are you eliminating the possibility of space being something, perhaps because you cannot picture this.? I am not trying to be argumentative, just asking questions and wondering if the implications of Einsteins equations may be that space is perhaps something bounded by non-space. I admit that this raises the possibility that the universe is not static and not infinite, and raises interesting questions about the origin of the universe, but the questions are not illegitimate simply because you find the notion that space is something that is bounded, to be contradictory, based on your finite understanding. Guess I am just questioning the infinity of your understanding (please don't take that as a stab--- the exhaustiveness of my understanding is obviously as limited as your own) and I am wondering how you account for the implication in Einsteins equations that space is something and thus finite. No ax to grind here, but to be sure not to rule out the conclusion that space is something that is finite, that time is finite, and thus may have a beginning implying some uncomfortable possibilities. Our emotions and limitations do not put a constraint on where the evidence may or may not lead. What are your thoughts? Thank you for considering my points. Be kind, everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.... me too.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Daniel,

“Are you absolutely sure that space is not something?”

What if I told you I’m not sure?

What if another person wrote a similar article and he told you he was absolutely sure?

Who is right….me or him? Who are you more inclined to BELIEVE….the one who leans towards your bias?

Should we take a vote on the issue to make it more official?

How about asking the two superpowers of the world to fight another Rocky IV boxing match: Obama vs Putin….and let the winner decide? Does this make it more official or more legitimate?

How about asking a Levitating Guru to decide….he looks wiser than anybody on the planet!

Maybe we should ask a Mathematician to pull out his ruler out of his ass and measure space, then he can prove it for the rest of humanity so we can all swallow it without even questioning the autistic egghead?

What if we ask an Atheist whether he believes or dis-believes space to be something? Maybe he can confirm his belief with Richard Dawkins to make it more authoritative, huh?

Perhaps we should just flip a coin….let the coin decide and make the result less biased and more statistically and Mathematically objective?

Daniel….Daniel…..my dear friend Daniel….for the Love of God Daniel…..is THIS how Science is done on this Planet of the Apes? I mean, have the apes lost their minds and gone wild?

Surely you jest! Emotions, biases, votes, superpowers of the world, big muscle, bombing power, wisdom, belief, proof, creativity, authority, brainwashing, likelihood, chance, statistics, etc…..have absolutely NOTHING to do with Science and only belong in Religion!

Whether space is ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ is a conceptual issue we critically reason and define right now…RIGHT THIS SECOND…..once and for all…..and for all eternity. If our reasoning or definition is contradictory, then obviously it belongs in Religion, not in Science. Does this make sense?

,

A Scientist defines the crucial terms of his argument as follows:

Something: that which has shape; synonym: object, thing, particle, entity, etc.

Nothing: that which lacks shape

Something and nothing are the antithesis of each other. There is no other option between shape and ‘no shape’.

Now…..which category does space fall into…..something or nothing?

Let’s assume space=something, as you claim.

Please explain how any object, like a planet or even you, can possibly "move" through this physical continuous brick you call "space", which cannot be displaced, like water can be displaced in the ocean. You know that water is capable of being displaced because there is ‘nothing’ in the background, don’t you? When we move and displace this physical space you believe in, what gives space the capability of being displaced? Is it more space?

How can you possibly change your location within this brick when you are continuously "molded" within it?

How can you move when you are encased in cement (i.e. the space something you refer to)?

Obviously to assert space falls under the category of ‘something’ is contradictory. It is impossible to justify such an assertion.

Furthermore…if space was something, then space would have shape and a boundary. So….what is outside the boundary of space? God? Heaven? More space?

Obviously we have another contradiction!

Q: what do contradictions have to do with Science?

A: ZIP! Contradictions are the faculty of Religion.

Therefore, space belongs in the category of nothing; i.e. no thing. No shape!

Space: that which lacks shape

It is impossible to justify otherwise. This is what Science is about….justifying your definitions with a critically reasoned argument that is rational and impossible to contradict.

You cannot contradict the fact that if you don’t feed your dog it will die. And you don’t need to run an experiment or ask Obama or your Math Priest for his petty OPINION on this matter. This is something you use critical thinking skills to reason. Opinions belong in Religion. Rational explanations are the faculty of Science!

Space cannot be bent like trampoline….IMPOSSIBLE. Relativity = RELIGION!

In Science we use our brain for critical thinking…..not our emotions, biases or our everlasting love for authority. And we certainly don’t ask Einstein for his autograph.


Daniel2 2 years ago

Our graduate students in physics humble me with their honest questions. I am not sure why you are bringing up religion? I am asking a scientific question alongside our students: Is space something or nothing? And also asking whether matter and time are finite or infinite? You seem right to say that we are both discussing "concepts", the concept that space and time and matter are finite OR the alternative concept that space, time, and matter are infinite. These are questions that are trying to ascertain facts, attempting to think about, conceptualize, what the facts truly are on this question. When experimental physics seems to show that light bends near objects of mass, there are possible implications that space is something or alternatively that space is nothing. You seem to think that your personal religious opinion is "science" and therefore that your opinion of what is a fact, as long as you call it science, is THE authority, "science". You seem to have a deep reliance on your own authority. Why are you so religious about your own authority? On what authority do you rely and on what basis do you ask others to rely on your authority? I did not mean to say that because Einstein or you or me say something, that this makes it so. Perhaps you should question your personal authority? Me thinks thou dost protest too much? If religion is "whatever a person chooses to rely on as ultimately true", then your religion is an interesting one, but subject to the test that all religions are subject to whether they like it or not: "Is your religion true? does it correspond to the facts or only to your idea of the facts?" I do not know everything, but I really want to discover through logic, experience, and experiment where I am correct at times and where I am certainly incorrect. My own limitations show me that I am certainly incorrect much more often than I think I am. And you? If we discover that time, space, and matter are finite, then we should not hide from those facts, and humility would be in order. Thank you for even reading my questions. I appreciate your time. Thanks for talking. With no axe to grind, Daniel


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Daniel, it's quite obvious all I've said to you went 50 miles over your head. Incredible how Autism is spreading like wildfire these days.

If you are looking for an Authority to tell you what to think and what to believe then you've come to the wrong place. The only Authority in the Universe is God....not your Mathemagics Bibles, Relativity Scriptures, Quantum Scrolls or your unreliable, untrustworthy and non-credible wife-abusing CRIMINALS like Einstein. Quit hating on women and quit supporting criminals who abuse them just because they're Jewish....ok sunshine? Ouuuuuuch, that hurts!....your whole religiosophical mantra is self-refuting. Do yourself a huge favor and keep away form Science....you might end up hurting yourself and the unsuspecting gawkers who drool at your retarded nonsense.

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working