THE INFINITE UNIVERSE (Part 1, Chapter 1-2)
© Eit Gaastra
CONTENTS of this website (bottom of this webpage)
Part 1 (chapters 1-1 and 1-2) presents a connection between physics, astronomy, philosophy, psychology and evolution biology. The redshift of far away galaxies is explained with a tired light hypothesis.
We die. That is why we can feel that we live, that is why we can experience our existence.
This may be the same for bacteria and also for atoms and photons (1-1). Thus it may be that an atom can only exist because its existence is finite.
If feelings are the essence of being and if they are wrapped together with the beginning and ending of being, then feelings may cause the end of an entity, for then feelings are only possible when they (can) end and thus the entity must end as well.

To put it different: existence may cost energy. Or: mass/energy burns to nothing. Or: mass/energy vanishes. This may be an exception to the conservation-of-energy principle (not necessarily, for there may always be smaller particles to be found, see also 3-2).

Perhaps everything that is, consists of mass, also photons and neutrinos. Perhaps we have to call every form of physical existence: mass (with a certain velocity and hence energy).
Perhaps everything that (physically) is, is mass (see also 2-1).
[August 2004: One of the biggest physics breakthroughs during the last decade is that neutrinos actually have a small amount of mass246. End August 2004]

Philosophically it may seem weird that I say: feelings are possible because of finity and finity is there because of feelings, feelings are caused by finity and finity is caused by feelings.
But it is the same as: we have feelings because we are going to die and there is such thing as death in order to be able to feel.

Thus our feelings are caused by our death and in a certain way our death is caused by our feelings. Death and feelings can only “exist” together. Feelings can only be if they are going not to be.
You want to feel fine and you can not feel fine if you are not around or if you are going to be around forever (on Earth), but you can feel fine if you are around and know/feel you are going to vanish (or: die, as a human).

We are finite and if time and space are infinite we never will understand the infinity of time and space, because something that is finite can not understand something that is infinite.
We do have, as humans, a beginning and an end, and thus we can not understand something that does not begin nor end. Real understanding is: seeing the logic in feelings [July 2004: or rather: real understanding = feeling it End July 2004], but endlessness can not be felt.

Feelings can only exist thanks to a beginning and an ending. Something that does not end can not be understood, not by us and not by endlessness itself, because something that is endless does not live, does not feel.

Endlessness of time and space can not be understood (by definition). And: something that is infinite is not physical real, because existence is only possible if there is an end to existence. Time and space are not physically real and therefore they can be infinite.
Also infinity concerning ever bigger superclusters (4-1) or ever bigger regions of space (5-4) nor infinity concerning ever smaller particles (3-1, 4-1) may be something that can never be understood completely (by definition).

It may always remain the question if this is true as well for the Universe. There may be (philosophical and physical) necessity for a beginning (of the Universe), but perhaps mass has always been (t)here, endless, both in space and in time.

There may be limits to what can be understood.
Everything that is, is unique. Not only by its mass, also by the velocity of its mass compared to other mass, and also by its place it takes in the universe and the time it occupies this place.
Uniqueness may be defined by: mass, movement, place and time; and its definition by those four “things”, two physically real, two non-existing, may be endless elusive as far as the exact pinning down to a certain value is concerned; which makes me conclude: nothing that exists can understand itself totally.

Cosmological redshift explained with a tired light hypothesis
There are 3 sorts of redshift in today's conventional science.

Two of them, the Doppler redshift and the gravitational redshift, are not controversial, but can not explain the major amount of redshift of far away galaxies.

The third redshift, the cosmological redshift (or expansion redshift according to big bang cosmologists) that (together with the general theory of relativity) originated big bang cosmology, is controversial for a number of cosmologists, but is able to explain the major amount of redshift of galaxies: all wavelengths of light are stretched by the expansion of space.

I would like to suggest another (hypothetical) redshift that may cause the major amount of redshift of far away galaxies.
The redshift is to be seen of the type of the tired light hypothesis advanced in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky6: light loses energy progressively while travelling across large distances of extragalactic space [October 2003: (“energy loss” because of what Zwicky called gravitational drag75). William McMillan (4-1) may have been the first who suggested tired light75. End October 2003]
According to Zwicky's tired light hypothesis the vibrations of light are steadily slowed down over long periods of time travelling through the universe, and so the redshift is the result of fatigue.
The idea of the tired light phenomenon has died away because so far there has not been a good explanation why light might suffer from fatigue while travelling in the universe.

[May 2003: Last year I noticed that many people have suggested the same tired light idea, i.e. light loses energy because of interaction with other (gravity/ether) entities in extragalactic space, see for example professor Assis2, professor Ghosh3, Dr. Van Flandern9 and various authors in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
[October 2003: Also a mechanism like Compton scattering may be classified as a tired light concept75. Compton scattering is scattering of photons by particles (like electrons and protons) distributed in space, which are believed to result in energy loses and wavelengths that are redshifted in proportion to distance travelled. See also an article by Assis and Neves76 (next to Mitchell's book75) if you want to know more about the history and variety of tired light concepts. End October 2003]

[May 2004: Professor Wright rules out Compton shift as a tired light model option, because Compton shift (for instance by electrons) would change the momentum of a photon, which would lead to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed94. He may be right about this.
However, tired light caused by ether/gravity particles is something completely different.

Wright also argues that the tired light model does not predict the observed so-called time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves94. A supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. Big bang cosmologists consider this “time dilation” as strong evidence in favor of the big bang and against tired light models.
However, “time dilation” of high redshift supernova light curves can be seen as an ether confirmation (2-2).

Wright also argues that the tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the cosmic (microwave) background radiation (CBR), that the CBR must come from a distance less than 0.25 Mpc (i.e. closer than the Andromeda Galaxy M31) when it is caused by blackbody radiation and that the CBR can't be produced by stars94. He may be right on all three things.
However, when the CBR is caused by dark matter as argued in 4-2, then Wright's calculations and conclusions about the distance of the CBR source (i.e. if CBR is caused by blackbody radiation) may be a confirmation of my suggestion that dark matter in the halo of the Milky Way (and/or dark matter in the disk of our Milky Way) may cause the CBR. End May 2004]

We take a look again at the statement: mass/energy may vanish because its being, its existence (its feelings), may cost energy (1-2).

Let us at the same time look at a light wave or light particle, a photon, that speeds through extragalactic space. If the light particles' existence (its feelings) costs energy, then how can we picture that it is losing energy?
The answer may be very simple: by redshifting.

So far this redshift is only philosophical. It has to have a physical reason too.

If a light wave leaves the Sun gravity (by the Sun) will increase its wavelength (gravitational redshift) and if the light wave falls on Earth gravity (by the Earth) will decrease its wavelength (gravitational blueshift).
In the case of gravitational blueshift gravity gives light waves more energy and in the case of gravitational redshift light waves give energy to gravity.

There is no point between the Sun and the Earth where the light won't be effected by gravity. There will always be gravity forces working on the light.
There is gravitational red- and blueshift and so gravity does work on light and hence light works on gravity and therefore light may lose energy to gravity somehow while travelling large distances of extragalactic space.

Thus cosmological redshift can be explained in a physical way, for in intergalactic space there are gravity forces too.

Tired light redshift is a different redshift than gravitational redshift. It is caused because light needs a medium to propagate itself and by doing so it loses energy. Sound loses energy because it moves air particles. Light may lose energy because it works on gravity, or: because it moves gravity particles in order to propagate itself, see 3-1.

[May 2004: It remains to be seen whether gravity or ether will take energy from photons on their journey through intergalactic space. It depends on what medium light needs to propagate itself (2-1). End May 2004]

[September 4 2006: In a book published in 1995, De zeven wegen der waanzin (The seven ways of madness, under the pseudonym Durk Wille, the book is not in print anymore because the publisher went broke), I wrote that if gravity causes tired light redshift then we may find that light passing through strong gravity fields redshifts stronger relative to light going through relatively weak gravity fields.
Big bang cosmologists explain CBR with a lower temperature coming from parts of the universe with higher density (i.e. the superclusters) with: the temperature is a little bit lower because the CBR had a little more trouble (energy taking) escaping the gravity of the areas with more matter.
The cosmic background radiation may have interacted with (relatively strong) gravity (within superclusters), which may be responsible for lowering the CBR temperature. This can be seen as a confirmation of the tired light by gravity hypothesis as well as a confirmation of the gravity is the ether hypothesis (2-2) and it may hint towards gravity particles concentrating themselves around matter (3-2). End September 4 2006]

(Perhaps high energy radiation can give energy to low energy radiation with gravity as an intermediate, thus originating cosmic background radiation, see 4-2.)

Tired light by gravity (particles) made me dug up an ether alternative for relativity (2-1). Because I once started to think about a reason for living (which led to Part 1 and the idea of gravity particles) I could look at physics and astronomy from a different point of view, which led to alternatives for today's conventional physics and astronomy (Parts 2,3,4,5,6 and 7).

Part 1 The expansion redshift paradigm
Part 2 The relativity paradigm
Part 3 The quantum mechanics and Newtonian gravity paradigms
Part 4 The big bang paradigm
Part 5 The black hole paradigm
Part 6 The neutron star and degenerate gas paradigms
Part 7 The star formation and solar system formation paradigms