Wow!

Somebody else sees this.

Extend that analogy out and galaxies are cosmic convection cycles, of light radiating out, as mass/form coalesces in.

What seems to be overlooked by the current cosmology is as overall space is flat, that the expansion between galaxies is balanced by the contraction into them, it means there is no excess expansion for the entire universe to expand.

Though this one of the problems “solved” by Inflation, as it is argued it only appears flat, like the surface of the planet appears flat, from our point of view.

What is measured when space is described as curving inward, is mass. While what is measured when space is described as expanding is the spectrum of intergalactic light.

That these balance offers some interesting possibilities.

Consider that Big Bang Theory cannot be falsified, as whenever there is a gap between prediction and observation, some enormous force of nature is inserted and all is well.

Before Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the first patch was when they realized Redshift increases proportional to distance, in all directions. Creating the effect that we appear to be at the center of this expansion. So it was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, because “spacetime!”

Which totally ignores the central premise of General Relativity; the speed of light is always measured as a Constant, in any frame. If the light is being redshifted, obviously intergalactic light is not Constant to intergalactic space!

Two metrics are being derived from the same light. One based on the speed and one based on the spectrum. Since it is expanding relative to the speed, ie, more lightyears, as the space “expands,” that means speed is still being treated as the denominator. If the spectrum was assumed to be the denominator, then the speed would be the variable and it would be a “tired light” issue.

We are at the center of our point of view, so an optical effect would be worth considering. It has been observed that multi spectrum “light packets” do redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster.

Yet this raises an even more problematic issue, as it would mean we are sampling a wave front, not observing individual photons traveling billions of lightyears.

Yet what if light is fundamentally analog and quantification is a function of reception, by material instruments? Say an incremental wave collapse, into photons.

One of the problems with current cosmology is the “missing mass” issue. There isn’t enough mass to explain the gravitational contraction.

So what if gravity is not so much a property of mass, as mass is only part of the spectrum of wave collapse, extending out to light/photons? Then the gravitational effect would be the wave collapse further out the light and radiation end of the spectrum.

Now consider that if we remove all physical properties from space, it still has the non-physical properties of equilibrium and infinity.

(Three dimensions are just the xyz coordinate system and a mapping device, like longitude, latitude and altitude.)

Infinity because there is nothing to bound or otherwise define it, while equilibrium is implicit in General Relativity, as the frame with the longest ruler and fastest clock is closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum. The absolute zero of the void.

So space is the absolute and the infinite. Everything cancels out, versus everything fades out.

What fills space are energy and the forms it manifests. Energy radiates toward infinity, or until it is completely dissipated. While form coalesces toward equilibrium. All positives and negatives cancel and all energy is radiated back out.

Thus those eyes at the center of the storm.

As for Dark Energy, while it seems to be currently edited down to “causing the expansion to increase,” this is nonsense, as the expansion started out close to the speed of light. What was predicted was that the rate of redshift and thus expansion would drop off gradually, due to gravitational attraction, but what was observed was the rate dropped off precipitously, then flattened out. To use a ballistics analogy, it would be like the universe had been shot out of a cannon and after slowing a rocket motor kicked in.

Though if we think about what we actually see, from our point of view outwards, not from the edge of the universe inwards, is that this rate starts off slowly and compounds on itself, eventually going parabolic. Which would be quite reasonable for an optical effect.

Then the cosmic background radiation would be the light of ever further sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. The solution to Olber’s paradox.

Obviously this gets harrumphed by cosmologists, but they don’t disprove the argument, just wave the finger of authority at it. I’m waiting to see what the James Webb shows.

Any of these points are open source, if you have any ideas or debates where they might be useful.

I did a bit of an essay on it;

https://medium.com/@johnbrodixmerrymanjr/the-confessions-of-a-cosmic-heretic-5cd4c044b8ea