Thank you. I read through your series on time and it is extensive and informative.

As it is evident, I'm not enthralled by some of currrent physics, but rather than lay out the entirety of my various arguments, I'll pose one, which I think expresses some of the degree of projection occurring.

When cosmic redshift was first observed, it created the effect that either all distant galaxies are moving away from us, or that something was interferring with light, aka, "tired light." Yet the light was otherwise clear, so it seemed the only solution was a doppler effect.

Than, as further study revealed, the rate of recession appeared proportional to distance in all directions, making us appear to be at the center of the universe.

So then it was decided that this was not an expansion in space, but of space itself, based on Einstein's concept of spacetime.

Yet this creates some glaring incongruities.

For one thing, the reason given for the physics of spacetime, is the math of Special Relativity, the primary axiom of which is that the speed of light is always measured as a constant. If intergalactic light is being redshifted, it is not constant to intergalactic space, since it is taking longer to cross. Presumably for light to remain constant to expanding space, it would have to speed up proportionally. Yet that would likely negate the cause of redshift.

Two metrics are being derived from the same light. One based on the speed and the other based on the spectrum. Since the theory is that "space expands," as opposed to "tired light," then the speed is being used as the denominator. More, stable, lightyears as the universe expands.

Now when I point this out, I'm told I don't understand the math. Essentially the "fabric" of space is expanding, thus lightwaves are stretched by this effect and the speed of light is just a local measurement.

Which seems to assume the mathematical abstraction of light waves is more fundamental than the processes generating them. That light is like a wavy string, which when stretched out, is less wavy.

For one thing, that's not how lightwaves exist, as they are a product of the energy of the light moving, much as waves in water are not just wavy lines, but an effect of energy moving through the water.

Now this does go the whole aether issue, but the wave can only really be said to exist as it is measured, by a decidedly physical apparatus absorbing the energy of the light.

The fact is that the only metric ever used in this theory is the speed of light, does give the lie to the argument that space is somehow distinct from what light measures. It is somewhat problematic to argue the spectrum and the speed of the same intergalactic light are somehow traveling and defining different categories of space.

As Einstein said, "Space is what you measure with a ruler" and the only ruler used is the speed of light, against which this expansion is being measured.

So the only way cosmic redshift can be explained by the recession of the sources, is if we are at the center of the entire universe, as defined in terms of a otherwise stable speed of light.

Given we are at the center of our point of view, the question is whether there is some overlooked optical effect and some years ago, I came across this paper;

https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

Making the point that while single spectrum light can only be redshifted by recession, multispectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher frequencies dissipate faster.

Yet that would mean we are sampling a wave front, not observing individual photons, which goes to the issue of whether quantization is fundamental to the light, or is a function of its absorption and measurement.

Which opens a much larger can of worms.

Though if it is an optical effect, compounding on itself, that would explain the parabolic curve in the rate, so no dark energy required.

Then, if the relationship between energy and whatever information can be extracted from it is so total that they go opposite diections of time, that would suggest mass is an effect of gravity, not the other way around and that excess gravitational effect isn't due to some missing mass, but all the inward curvature generating form and information further out the spectrum.

Safe to say, one has to be willing to look outside a very powerful consensus to even consider this, so I'll leave it at that.