This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
D T YARBROUGH
The theory of special relativity states that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the transmitter or the reciever. It is a constant speed of about 300,000 km/s in a vacuum. This occurs because the difference in motion translates into a change in the rate at which time passes(time dilation). This is a widely accepted theory established by Albert Einstein. This is a lie. Lets take a closer look at this theory. Ten billion years ago light left an object ten billion light years away. It reached Earth today. The object was moving at about ¾ the speed of light. Relativity says the light would head this way at the speed of light(relative to us). The speed of the transmitter dilates time so the the light appears to move away from it at the speed of light even though it moves away at 1 ¾ the speed of light if viewed from our perspective. But light leaving the transmitter heading in the other direction should move away from us at the speed of light. That would make it move away from the transmitter at ¼ the speed of light. How could light leaving the transmitter at ¼ the speed of light appear the same (to the transmitter)as light leaving in the other direction at 1 ¾ the speed of light. On the other hand, if light leaves the transmitter at the speed of light in all directions, then it would not appear so to us. It would appear to move toward us at ¼ the speed of light and away from us at 1 ¾ the speed of light until time dilation comes into play. But our interpretation of the speed of the transmitter has already taken time dilation into account. So what is actually happening? Light moves at the speed of light within the medium it passes through. That is why transparent objects have a refractive index that specifies the speed of light within that medium. Even relativity agrees with this, but what it doesn't say is that the speed of light is also relative to the speed of the medium, although the Michelson Morley experiment proved it. Massive objects do not move though space alone. The medium of space around them is also in motion. In an expanding universe, the medium of space moves faster, the father away it is from us. Light leaving an object 10 billion light years away will travel at the speed of light at all times (relative to the medium) as it approaches us. But as it travels through slower and slower medium, it speeds up relative to us. When it reaches us, it is traveling at the speed of light through our medium. This however creates problems for another major theory(The expansion of the universe). Since light is not always traveling at the speed of light relative to us, distances can not be measured based on time, distance, and a constant speed of light. Of course this isn't the only problem with the expansion theory. Any expansion has a center of expansion. The universe could never look the same in all directions(redshift versus distance or redshift versus speed) when viewed from each and every point. Even speed would not
correlate to distance when at twice the distance, expansion has to fill 8 time the volume of space. In fact, the universe is not expanding. It is a stable universe. There was no big bang. Light travels at nearly the same speed throughout the universe. Objects 10 billion light years away were always 10 billion light years away. The medium within our solar system is becoming more opaque to light at a rate that will make the sun appear ½ kilometer farther away in 100 years. This causes objects outside our solar system to dim in direct coorelation to the hubble constant. Redshift and apparent distance(brightness) are directly related but have nothing to do with speed, expanding space or the doppler affect. If you look at the title page, you will see that the wavelength of the light increased by 27%. Example 440 to 565 nm from the botton chart to the top chart over a distance I would assume exceeds 10 billion light years. Are we to assume that space only expanded 27% over 10 billion years. Based on the Hubble constant, it will double in the next 13.7 billion years, without including the increase in the expansion rate. If the expansion of space stretches the wavelength of light, then somewhere in the universe a blue star would have its light stretched into the green portion of the spectrum. Where are these green stars? Light is not shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. All wavelengths of visible light scatters, but red scatters the least. We are merely seeing the remains of the light that wasn't scattered over distance. Absorption lines can occur at any time as the light makes its journey through the medium of space. As light travels through denser material(gas clouds) it is slowed and its wavelength altered temperarily. While in this altered state, wavelengths are absorbed. As it returns to its previous state after leaving the dense environment, the absorption lines are not where they were when the absorption took place. If the wavelengths are stretched due to universal expansion, the peak intensity of the light waves will also shift toward the red end of the spectrum. If you look at the solar spectrum, you would see that as you get farther away from the sun, the ultraviolet peak would move into the visible spectrum and the sun would appear to brighten. As you move farther away and the shorter ultraviolet shifts into the visible spectrum, the sun would dim significantly. Are scientists considering this when they try to measure distance based on brightness? Until recently visible light was the only light most scientists saw through telescopes. None of this matters since the universe isn't expanding. When Hubbel first discovered the apparent expansion of space, he and others extrapolated backwards and assured everyone that the expansion started from a single point. They PROVED it over and over again until someone disproved it. Now they tell us the expansion occurred everywhere and that we(and every other point in the universe) lie at a center of this expansion. Actually I believe they are saying that a single big bang occurred followed by
extremely rapid inflation followed by an expansion at every point in the inflated universe. However, an expansion at any point must push other expanding points away from it. If the expansions are overlapping, then there are as much material moving toward as there is moving away. If they don't overlap, then there will be a center of the overall expansion and only one center. You can bet we are not at that center. So what could make it appear as though we are at the center of an expansion? The stars are getting dimmer, but not because they are getting farther away. Solar material is fogging up the solar system. Voyager did not detect solar wind at the edge of the universe but we detect it every second. Do they think it evaporates? It disperses throughout the solar system and very very gradually cause the light from outside the universe to dim due to scattering and reflection. Larger particles fall onto the surface of planets, asteroids, etc. Structures we see in the universe can only form when gravity between the individual parts of the structure is the major cause of movement. Inertial movement caused by expansion would not permit gravity to do its job. Look at the rings of Saturn or the asteroid belt. They will never create a single massive object(planet, moon, etc). Contrary to popular belief, planets do not form in orbit.