James,
Thank you very much for your consideration, especially in Light of the fact we have different views on convention. I'm used to getting negative responses to this.
To offer up a few more observations, the point I make about time and how it is similar to temperature, goes fairly deep into our biology and consciousness. For instance, I would argue the left, linear, rational hemisphere of the brain is based on time, as in sequence, while the right, emotional, intuitive side is thermal, as in feedback with context.
Consider that as energy changes form, it goes past to future, while the form goes future to past. As such reality is this dichotomy of energy and form. Consider that over a few billion years of evolution, we developed a central nervous system to process form/information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy.
Form is top down, while energy and process is bottom up. Our minds are constantly trying to figure out how all those bits of information work together, but they often seem like post-it notes on the wind, as we condense out bits of information from the energy. Otherwise it would whiteout.
As they go opposite directions of time, consider how this describes reality. Consider a factory; The product goes start to finish, while the process goes the other direction, consuming material and expelling product.
Life is similar. As individuals, we go birth to death, our lives in the future to in the past. While the species goes the other direction, on to new generations, shedding old. This operates on infinite layers, as our bodies are constantly generating and shedding cells, as the the environment evolves new species, as old ones go extinct.
As for the relationship of light and consciousness, consciousness is like energy, going from prior to succeeding thoughts, as these thoughts coalesce and dissolve. Much like frames of a movie, going future to past, it is actually the light shining through them we see, but our minds focus on the details.
Since there is only this energy, it is constantly being recycled in never ending feedback loops. Sort of like a tapestry woven from strands pulled from what had already been woven.
Which gets around to the cyclical nature of thermodynamics. Consider a convection cycle, where heat radiates out, as precipitation falls in. Then consider this in relation to that energy constantly expanding and creating new forms, which coalesce and congregate inward.
Then consider galaxies, which consist of radiation expanding out, as mass falls in.
What if what Hubble discovered, with redshift, was Einstein's original Cosmological Constant?
Consider the rubber sheet analogy of gravity. Logically where there is no ball to weight it down, it wouldn't be otherwise flat, or this would ignore the essential premise of relativity. So consider that the rubber sheet is over water and when the ball weighs it down, the sheet pushes back up with equal effect everywhere else. This we would detect as the redshift of light crossing the more empty regions of space. Though it is an effect of the light expanding to fill that space, which we then extract point particles of energy from the field
The reason Dark Energy was proposed is because the Big Bang model assumes the universe began with that initial Bang, resulting in the universe expanding at the speed of light. It was then assumed it cooled off and slowed down at a steady rate, but what was measured is that it slowed rapidly to begin with, then leveled out to a more stable redshift. To use a ballistics analogy, it would be as if the universe were shot out of a cannon and after it slowed, a rocket motor kicked in. This presumed rocket is Dark Energy.
Yet consider what we actually see and measure. This redshift starts off from our point of view quite slowly, but then gradually builds and eventually goes parabolic. Wouldn't an optical effect, compounding on itself create this very same effect?
Now if redshift is an optical effect, the light from beyond this horizon line of the sources apparently receding at the speed of light would still be reaching us, but it would all be shifted entirely into the black body and radiological spectrums. Which is exactly what we do see, with the Cosmic Background Radiation. So the CMBR would be the solution to Olber's paradox.
As for Dark Matter, what if this is a cycle of expansion and contraction, with both sides logically balanced? Then gravity is not so much a property of mass, as mass is an effect of gravity, this contraction side. Then the contraction effect goes all the way through the entire spectrum, from light being quantized into photons out of a field, so mass spiraling into black holes, like the eye of a gravitational storm. The effect requiring Dark Matter is this overall contraction, through the entire spectrum, not just what qualifies as mass.
More heresy. Fortunately I don't have to make a living from cosmology.
Regards,
John
