Akinbo,
The CMB is the solution to Olber's paradox, in that the light from those sources beyond the horizon line of where it is shifted to the point of appearing to recede faster than the speed of light, reaches us as black body radiation. That it is so smooth could as logically be some form of phase shift.
That redshift is directly related to distance is a reason to consider an optical effect, otherwise we appear as being at the exact center of this expansion, if it cannot be explained as space itself expanding.
Consider that the further away the source, the more their rate of recession increases. Now the assumption is that at the initial singularity, everything was flying away at near or equal to the speed of light and then as the volume increased, energy was lost and it slowed down at a constant rate. Then they discovered in 1999, that it actually slowed down at a fairly rapid rate for the first 7 billion lightyears, then flattened out and has slowed at a much slower rate since then. The reason postulated for this is 'dark energy,' some form of negative gravity inherent to space that sustains this effect of expansion at that more constant rate.
Now if it is an optical effect, then it would compound on itself. The distant stretching effect would then be further stretched as it keeps passing through ever more space. So as you look out across the visible universe, this effect would start out slowly, but then build on itself and eventually start to go parabolic and eventually appear to recede at the speed of light. Which is exactly what we do see, but interpreted through the prism of Big Bang Theory, which needs to add dark energy to explain that curve in the rate of recession. Rather than falling off from the singularity, it is magnifying itself and building to that high redshift.
The mass points collapse into themselves, while radiating out enormous amounts of energy/light, until what is left falls into the vortex at the center and is ejected as enormous bubbles and jets of cosmic rays. Expansion and contraction balance.
John C,
That's going to take some serious unraveling for me to process it. I have to say I'm just throwing some basic observations out there and trying to start a discussion.
Keeping in mind that we really don't have gravity figured out, so how can we be totally sure what light will do over billions of lightyears. As I keep pointing out, all the evidence can be accounted for as optical, except for the assumption light can only be redshifted by recession, yet the only reason 'tired light' was dismissed was because the light wasn't being diffused. Now the assumption is that photons have no mass and can't be affected by gravity, yet obviously light is lensed by gravity and the way to explain that is presumably because space itself is curved. Then again, there is 'dark matter' to explain why gravity seems to have a much stronger effect than accounted for by the apparent mass. What if there is some continuity between gravity/mass and light, with all the various spectrums, rays neutrinos, gases, dust, etc. That gravity, rather than being a specific force, is a cumulative composite of all the contracting elements, even particles coalescing out of fields, etc. Presumably the dark energy is concentrated on the perimeters of galaxies, coincidently where there are large amounts of excess cosmic rays.
Physics thinks only what can be measured is real, yet the act of measurement is a function which causes contraction, so everything gets assumed to be a particle as its most elemental form, not that the act of measurement is what is producing the particle.
If we can hypothesize about multiverses, why can't we hypothesize about basic properties which resist measurement? That would be truly revolutionary.
Regards,
John M
