[humanbydefault]

The special theory of relativity stated by Einstein in 1905 disregarded the existence of an eather as the medium needed to justify the way light -or what's the same E-M waves- can move at a constant speed of approx. 300,000 km/sec.

I say that if there was indeed nothing like it... space and/or time wouldn't exist either. I know it may sound absurd at a first glance but it doesn't make sense to imagine the universe without it. In fact I dared to say that it is precisely the "invisible" eather the fabric of what we call "space-time."

Is the eather's density the same across the cosmos? NEVER. It changes constantly as the result of the same process occuring in the nucleus of stars. Just as it happens inside the nucleus of atoms, the process that holds the energy together inside atoms, stars and galaxies are the one responsible for the existence of SPACE and therefore also TIME.

The "bending of light when crossing near a star" -remember the experiment that help to prove Einstein's theories correct?

He said that GRAVITY caused the pull necessary for the "miracle" and I say that he should have said that "the different density of the eather close to the star" was the one causing the change in the path of the light.

Then the "RELATIVISTIC REDSHIFT" also the title of this thread. It was another LUCKY SHOT that made him almost unbeatable in front of opposing theories.
He proposed that the actual energy of light suffered a decrease as the source was moving away from the observer. I don't see other explanation for the fact that instead of receiving a full range of frequencies any star is capable of emitting, we only get the infrared instead.

We know that energy can't simply disappear into nothing and specially when it comes to light -an E-M energy wave- even Einstein admited that light travels (moves) across space without any RESISTANCE. I hope you too agree on this point.

SO... (Help me on this would you) IF NO RESISTANCE OF ANY KIND IS CAPABLE OF SLOWING DOWN THE PATH OF ANY E-M WAVE [LIGHT] COULD HE (EINSTEIN) EXPLAINED THE "REDSHIFT" USING A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT OTHER THAN A SORT OF "RELATIVISTIC DOPLER EFFECT" TO JUSTIFY IT?

That's what he did. But Einstein see himself in a greater problem since he himself said in his special theory of relativity that the speed of light is invariant with respect to reference frames of observation.

Unless stars were moving away from us at the speed of light [which I doubt very much] how could a moving star as a source of a light could manage to decrease the actual energy of its light-emission just by getting farther from us?

WOULDN'T BE MUCH MORE LOGICAL TO SAY THAT THOSE STARS ARE SO FAR FROM US THAT WE ARE RECEIVING THE FIRST EMISSIONS THAT CORRESPOND WITH THE LONGEST WAVELENGTH [THE INFRARED] AND THE OTHERS ARE STILL ON THEIR WAY TO US IN ABOUT... OHHH! LET'S SAY IN OTHER MILLION YEARS FROM NOW?

Instead of prophesing an expanding universe altogether... WHY not considering other hypothesis with much more common sense and sense of logic?

The answer is simple... because we would have to rewrite a bunch of concepts already awarded with a NOBLE PRIZE... and that would be a catastrophe!

NO EATHER MEANS NO SPACE-TIME WHICH ALSO MEANS NO REALITY AS WE KNOW IT... WHAT AM I REFERRING HERE?

BLACK HOLES!

YES! A BLACK HOLE IS PRECISELY THE ABSENCE OF SPACE,TIME AND REALITY ALTOGETHER! The absence of the MEDIUM needed for e-m waves to move through!

It is not because light can't scape from black holes... light can't exist inside black holes at all! It has no way of moving across since there is no SPACE and therefore no TIME the way we perceive it in our reality-universe.

I wrote this ideas in my book "WARNING SCIENTIFIC DISCRETION ADVISED" I dedicated an entire chapter to black holes and I compared them to common hurricanes in the middle of the cosmos. The interaction between galaxies could be the main reason for black holes to occur.

If you read about blck holes in official and orthodox sites, you'll find that they try to explain them as the concentration of the mass of a star so big that gravity sucks everything around it, even light.

I say the exact opposing statement:

Black Holes are the absence of mass, the absence of eather and therefore the absence of space-time or reality... a place where the laws of physics do not exist the way we know them. They must exist and they are the natural consequence of the co-existence of different galactic systems across the known universe.

You may ask yourselves now...

How come you dare to say that Black Holes are the absence of SPACE ... even a child knows that a Black Hole has 3 dimensional spatial coordinates, not to mention that they exist inside our TIME-DIMENSION too (the so-called fourth dimension)!

Yes! That's correct! Black Holes are regions of space (cosmos) we may call VOIDS. The literally absence of THINGS the missing of PHYSICALLY EXISTENT ENTITIES ALTOGETHER. It is a region no human being could even imagine in esence. Not me and not you could imagine something that isn't there even when it occupies a 3 dimensional place in our reality... think about it.

HUMANBYDEFAULT