New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

particle physics in a pig's eye

Days

Commentator
A photon of light actually does contain a very small amount of mass. It is therefor a particle and also a 'wave.'
If photons were indeed 'mass-less, how then could they be bent by traveling near a massive object? Most of your information contained in this post is such an outlandish stretch that it becomes awkward to even attempt to sift through it.
most of cosmology is such an outlandish stretch that it is no longer credible science, and this thread was looking at that.

The measurement of light is not much different than a measurement of heat or a measurement of volume; think of it this way; when you say the water in the gulf of Mexico reaches 85 degrees in the summertime; do you think of that 85 degrees as the water itself? Is that 85 degrees a particle or a wave? When you say the battery is 2 cubic feet in size, do you think of that 2 cubic feet as the battery itself? Is that 2 cubic feet a metal or an acid? It is the same with a photon, it is a measurement, it isn't the light itself, it is merely a unit for measuring light.

When you look at the light itself, it is a wave; there is no particle there; light consists of a reversing magnetic field; it is like the heat from a fire, it has no mass. So when you look at a photon of light; what you have there is a certain amount of light; that's not a particle, but it is such a small measurement of light, that it fills the same volume as a particle, and for purposes of mathematics, it is applied as a particle, and because it is easier to grasp, it is referred to as a particle of light; and since the math treats the photon as a particle, our universities teach it that way; so you were taught that light is a particle and a wave; but it just isn't true, visible light is a frequency range on the electromagnetic wave spectrum, it is no more a particle than radio waves or microwaves, or x-rays, or gamma rays... electromagnetic waves are not particles, they are waves.
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
When you look at the light itself, it is a wave; there is no particle there; light consists of a reversing magnetic field; it is like the heat from a fire, it has no mass. So when you look at a photon of light; what you have there is a certain amount of light; that's not a particle, but it is such a small measurement of light, that it fills the same volume as a particle, and for purposes of mathematics, it is applied as a particle, and because it is easier to grasp, it is referred to as a particle of light; and since the math treats the photon as a particle, our universities teach it that way; so you were taught that light is a particle and a wave; but it just isn't true, visible light is a frequency range on the electromagnetic wave spectrum, it is no more a particle than radio waves or microwaves, or x-rays, or gamma rays... electromagnetic waves are not particles, they are waves.
You are waaaaaay over-thinking the speed of light.

The speed of light is the ONLY constant in the universe.

Everything else is relevant.

Hence, Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

ABRACADABRA.
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
Why do you keep saying that there is no particle? There is no particle if you are able to brake it down through enormous pressure - as in tossing it into a black hole. The mass would remain (yes, a photon of light does, indeed poses mass) but it would no longer be a photon.
 

Days

Commentator
The universe actually is nothing but space. The fields that all matter are created from can be broken down to zero actual size that's why it is said that a singularity (like the point of infinite density contained in a black hole) can actually contain the entire universe (immediately preceding the big bang).
Whether space is empty or it is an aether, is the whole debate. Modern science says it is an aether. All your great mathematicians, including Einstein, treated space as an aether. If space was truly empty, there would be no matter to wrinkle, there would be no "space time continuum" and all the laws of relativity would be just that: relativity, IOW perspective, the matter itself would not wrinkle or stretch, and there would be no way to cheat time.

so what is there - in space - that makes this big argument? Star light. I should give the flip side of the argument. The electrical universe says that space is filled with magnetic/electric forces, not matter, not mass, just electromagnetic forces. So the idea that space is empty (empty of mass) is the most modern theory. The old theory holds that space is an aether, meaning there is something to it, it is a body of matter, so it reacts as a body; hence, a ray of light enters the aether and it creates a wave of light in the body of space, in the aether. capice? That's what Einstein believed. That's how he perceived light travelled. Today we teach it is a reversing magnetic field that will travel through an empty space, which we call a vacuum.

If star light is both a particle and a wave, then space is an aether, filled with mass, and no longer a vacuum. A vacuum means there is no mass, if there is the tiniest mass there, it is no longer a vacuum, and space is not empty, in fact the word "space' is just a reference to the volume, it is a word like "heat' it is a type of measurement; space refers to the volume that is out there. "Outer space" is just that space out beyond our atmosphere. We have come to think of space as empty, as a vacuum, the electrical universe is all the most modern physics, it is what mankind's most recent knowledge tells us, when you think of a photon as a particle of light, that is so 100 years ago, that is the old theory of space, that is the aether universe.

I don't believe in the big bang, that was the most ridiculous theory ever and it has been disproven by the direction and speed of galaxy travel relative to each other. (without relativity, there is no way to gauge space travel - I believe in relativity, I believe in gravity, even though that is a throwback to Einstein, I don't believe in the aether, per se, but if you are purely looking at wave physics, all that math was developed in the aether, and there is no difference, the electromagnetic wave has the same characteristics) But you should realize, the big bang begins with space as empty, and then fills it with light. The big bang is more about the nature of the universe than it is an actual starting point for time. Time and mass have no starting point. But I agree with the big bang in the most important aspect: space is a vacuum filled with electromagnetic waves, not particles.

This seems like symantics until you go study solar flares and get told that they are particle stream events being physically thrust into space; and since all stars have flares, space would be filled with particles, and we go full circle back to the aether. what's more, space would be filled with protons, so space would have atomic weight, space would become a solid.... this is why I contend that those are just charges equal to an ion, not actual particles; if they were particles, they wouldn't pass the earth by, they would get sucked into our gravity. If the energetic particles caught in the earth's magnetic belts were truly particles, they would not disappear over time; after their charge dissipated, the particle would still be there, so the radiation belts would continue to accrue those protons ... by now they would be solid belts of hydrogen or something, there would be 4 billion years of protons collected out there and a particle stream event is thick with protons, get the picture? Solar flares are explosions of light, and light does not contain mass, hence solar flares are not particle stream events, they are super charged concentrations of light... if you could put one under a microscope, you wouldn't see anything, but we can detect them in our radiation belts; you have a magnetic charge hitting a magnetic field and it imprints the field with its charge... think of it electrically and it makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
You are waaaaaay over-thinking the speed of light.

The speed of light is the ONLY constant in the universe.

Everything else is relevant.

Hence, Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

ABRACADABRA.
Einstein had 2 theories of relativity...

general theory of relativity defined gravity.

special theory of relativity got into the speed of light.
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
Einstein had 2 theories of relativity...

general theory of relativity defined gravity.

special theory of relativity got into the speed of light.
Yes, I'm well aware.

Speed of light never changes - always the same as long as it not impeded by matter. It always measures the same speed even by other observers who are on a non-fixed, moving point; even with respect to differentiating points of observation.
 

Days

Commentator
Yes, I'm well aware.

Speed of light never changes - always the same as long as it not impeded by matter. It always measures the same speed even by other observers who are on a non-fixed, moving point; even with respect to differentiating points of observation.
So, did Einstein hold that the matter was actually stretched, or that it was stretched relative to the perspective of the system moving relative to it? IOW, we have two galaxies, and relative to each other's movements, the two galaxies are moving past each other at .999995 times the speed of light. So, as they look at each other, the galaxies appear to be stretched into a long thin line of light. Is the matter actually stretched, or is that just the appearance?

So much of the special theory of relativity has to do with the characteristics of light. Light is a wave, so it can be stretched. If light is a particle also, the particle is stretched. But we know there is no particle in an electromagnetic wave.

Those laws of physics that Einstein wrote were derived from his math. Speed of light is a constant because the formula is used.... IOW, the formula always uses the same number; the mathematical speed of light is always the same... that's math. Meanwhile, when you shine light into water, it slows down. When you shine light through the atmosphere it slows down also, not as much as it does in water, but enough to separate the faster light from the slower light; red light is the slowest light, then below red is infrared, while violet light is the fastest light and above violet is ultraviolet. Sunsets are reddish because the light is stretched in the atmosphere and you are seeing the slowest light. Frequency and speed are the same thing, frequency is how fast the light is vibrating; in a reversing magnetic field, how fast is the magnetic field reversing... that's the vibration... which is also how the light travels, so the speed of light is relative to its frequency.

In the real universe the speed of light is always changing, but on a chalkboard it is constant... cuz, the math uses the same speed. See how the math is not perfect? Tesla complained that the mathematical physics becomes so out of touch with reality that is literally becomes a bunch of fanciful equations that don't mean anything.
 
Last edited:

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
So, did Einstein hold that the matter was actually stretched, or that it was stretched relative to the perspective of the system moving relative to it? IOW, we have two galaxies, and relative to each other's movements, the two galaxies are moving past each other at .999995 times the speed of light. So, as they look at each other, the galaxies appear to be stretched into a long thin line of light. Is the matter actually stretched, or is that just the appearance?

So much of the special theory of relativity has to do with the characteristics of light. Light is a wave, so it can be stretched. If light is a particle also, the particle is stretched. But we know there is no particle in an electromagnetic wave.

Those laws of physics that einstein wrote were derived from his math. Speed of light is a constant because the formula is used.... IOW, the formula always uses the same number; the mathematical speed of light is always the same... that's math. Meanwhile, when you shine light into water, it slows down. When you shine light through the atmosphere it slows down also, not as much as it does in water, but enough to separate the faster light from the slower light; red light is the slowest light, then below red is infrared, while violet light is the fastest light and above violet is ultraviolet. Sunsets are reddish because the light is stretched in the atmosphere and you are seeing the slowest light. Frequency and speed are the same thing, frequency is how fast the light is vibrating; in a reversing magnetic field, how fast is the magnetic field reversing... that's the vibration... which is also how the light travels, so the speed of light is relative to its frequency.

In the real universe the speed of light is always changing, but on a chalkboard it is constant... cuz, the math uses the same speed. See how the math is not perfect? Tesla complained that the mathematical physics becomes so out of touch with reality that is literally becomes a bunch of fanciful equations that don't mean anything.
They are actually stretched in both how they appear and measure to the other galaxy but not to their own.

*Relativity.
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
They are actually stretched with how they would appear and actually measured to the other galaxy and not to their own.

*Relativity.
What is measured by the other galaxy is the light.

Meanwhile, the mass that makes up a galaxy, is not stretched, it is constant.

Think of it this way.... is the earth stretched into a gazillion different shapes by every galaxy out in the universe? Of course not. But those shapes happen when our galaxy is viewed by the other galaxies.

When you are talking attraction between masses ... gravity ... you are still talking about forces relative to one another. But when you start talking perception, when you get into the characteristics of light, then you get into how light is stretched by those forces relative to one another... the special theory of relativity.

As long as light is a wave and not a particle, no problem. But when you let the math fool you into thinking light is a particle, then you get into stretching mass and eventually even time... and that never happens in the real world. Our mass is not stretched by other galaxies perception of our galaxy. And time is linear, not dimensional, and time is only linear in as much as it continues forward; time is another measurement, no matter how you measure time, it remains a local phenomenom. IOW, if something is 100 degrees as measured locally, and that same substance appears to 1000 degrees as measured from a different perspective, it doesn't change the substance from being 100 degrees locally. It is the same with time. No matter what other method or perspective you choose to measure the spinning earth, it won't change it from spinning once every 24 hours to us here on earth. Hence, no matter how good the theories are, there is no way to time travel, and there's no way to reverse the sun's rays and have them go back into the sun.

If God turned the earth backwards ten minutes for Hezekiah, that is still not the same as going back in time ten minutes. Time is linear, time kept going forward, it was just the earth that got turned back ten minutes, not time. Time continued forward.
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
What is measured by the other galaxy is the light.

Meanwhile, the mass that makes up a galaxy, is not stretched, it is constant.

Think of it this way.... is the earth stretched into a gazillion different shapes by every galaxy out in the universe? Of course not. But those shapes happen when our galaxy is viewed by the other galaxies.

When you are talking attraction between masses ... gravity ... you are still talking about forces relative to one another. But when you start talking perception, when you get into the characteristics of light, then you get into how light is stretched by those forces relative to one another... the special theory of relativity.

As long as light is a wave and not a particle, no problem. But when you let the math fool you into thinking light is a particle, then you get into stretching mass and eventually even time... and that never happens in the real world. Our mass is not stretched by other galaxies perception of our galaxy. And time is linear, not dimensional, and time is only linear in as much as it continues forward; time is another measurement, no matter how you measure time, it remains a local phenomenom. IOW, if something is 100 degrees as measured locally, and that same substance appears to 1000 degrees as measured from a different perspective, it doesn't change the substance from being 100 degrees locally. It is the same with time. No matter what other method or perspective you choose to measure the spinning earth, it won't change it from spinning once every 24 hours to us here on earth. Hence, no matter how good the theories are, there is no way to time travel, and there's no way to reverse the sun's rays and have them go back into the sun.

If God turned the earth backwards ten minutes for Hezekiah, that is still not the same as going back in time ten minutes. Time is linear, time kept going forward, it was just the earth that got turned back ten minutes, not time. Time continued forward.
I did not comment about mass - I talked about matter and I talked about the speed of light.

Don't forget that measuring the speed of light has a few minor anomalies, but they do not effect the actual measurement of light itself; such as galaxies moving apart from the opposite sides of the universe - they do not affect each other, period.

Time absolutely is stretched, shrunk and bent. You cannot make it run backwards and you cannot stop it. Time, like space, speed and distance are all relative to each other - the speed of light remains consistent. I am not privy the hypotheses you are tempting to demonstrate. Is it your own? If so kudos for your knowledge of physics even though I am in stark opposition to what you are saying.
 
Last edited:

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
If God turned the earth backwards ten minutes for Hezekiah, that is still not the same as going back in time ten minutes. Time is linear, time kept going forward, it was just the earth that got turned back ten minutes, not time. Time continued forward.
Correct, time follows a forward trajectory only. You can go back, but only by going forward and with the utmost difficulty.
 
So I have a very basic question about the known universe. The Hubble deep space shot we all have seen shows galaxies and even individual stars that sent light out 12 to 13 billion years ago. That means the position of the light as we see it today was where that object was 12 -13 billion years ago. Hubble can look in every direction and see similar distant objects. My question relates to how big the universe really was 12-13 billion years ago. We can see that it was vast in every direction and at least 12-13 billion light years from where we are today. Does that not imply that the universe was at least double that size at the time? I look left, see an object 12 billion light years away. I look right and see another object 12 billion light years away. That means there was 24 billion light years separating those two objects at the time. Is this right?
 
A photon of light actually does contain a very small amount of mass. It is therefor a particle and also a 'wave.'
If photons were indeed 'mass-less, how then could they be bent by traveling near a massive object? Most of your information contained in this post is such an outlandish stretch that it becomes awkward to even attempt to sift through it.
Vacuuminium

Energy is a form of mass, so pure energy could be affected by gravity.
 
So I have a very basic question about the known universe. The Hubble deep space shot we all have seen shows galaxies and even individual stars that sent light out 12 to 13 billion years ago. That means the position of the light as we see it today was where that object was 12 -13 billion years ago. Hubble can look in every direction and see similar distant objects. My question relates to how big the universe really was 12-13 billion years ago. We can see that it was vast in every direction and at least 12-13 billion light years from where we are today. Does that not imply that the universe was at least double that size at the time? I look left, see an object 12 billion light years away. I look right and see another object 12 billion light years away. That means there was 24 billion light years separating those two objects at the time. Is this right?
A Singularity Is an Impossible Concentration of Matter

A composite substance created this universe moving at the speed of c^2 (a light-year in 3 minutes). So those galaxies are moving at a rate faster than Postclassical doctrine can keep up with them. They are at the edge and are themselves creating space, expanding the universe. What Hubble is seeing is the original substance and is far less than 24 billion light years away from the galaxies in the opposite end.

Suppose you believe a vehicle can only travel at 60 miles an hour. You see it two miles away and conclude that it must have taken two minutes to get there. But it actually traveled at 3,600 mph and took two seconds to get there.

Through entanglement, it is possible that they are the same galaxies in each direction. Since the scientific dictators' explanation of entanglement is irrational, what it really shows is the same matter. After it goes back and forth through the underlying mother universe at c^2 and flashes in this universe at either terminal.
 
A Singularity Is an Impossible Concentration of Matter

A composite substance created this universe moving at the speed of c^2 (a light-year in 3 minutes). So those galaxies are moving at a rate faster than Postclassical doctrine can keep up with them. They are at the edge and are themselves creating space, expanding the universe. What Hubble is seeing is the original substance and is far less than 24 billion light years away from the galaxies in the opposite end.

Suppose you believe a vehicle can only travel at 60 miles an hour. You see it two miles away and conclude that it must have taken two minutes to get there. But it actually traveled at 3,600 mph and took two seconds to get there.

Through entanglement, it is possible that they are the same galaxies in each direction. Since the scientific dictators' explanation of entanglement is irrational, what it really shows is the same matter. After it goes back and forth through the underlying mother universe at c^2 and flashes in this universe at either terminal.
Dude, I need some of that ganja you are smoking. But seriously, you did not answer my question. I think I know the answer though. Light bends and perhaps the object we see in one direction is actually the same object we see in the other direction which is kind of what you said. Thanks for blowing my mind.
 

Days

Commentator
A Singularity Is an Impossible Concentration of Matter

A composite substance created this universe moving at the speed of c^2 (a light-year in 3 minutes). So those galaxies are moving at a rate faster than Postclassical doctrine can keep up with them. They are at the edge and are themselves creating space, expanding the universe. What Hubble is seeing is the original substance and is far less than 24 billion light years away from the galaxies in the opposite end.

Suppose you believe a vehicle can only travel at 60 miles an hour. You see it two miles away and conclude that it must have taken two minutes to get there. But it actually traveled at 3,600 mph and took two seconds to get there.

Through entanglement, it is possible that they are the same galaxies in each direction. Since the scientific dictators' explanation of entanglement is irrational, what it really shows is the same matter. After it goes back and forth through the underlying mother universe at c^2 and flashes in this universe at either terminal.
A Singularity Is an Impossible Concentration of Matter

A composite substance created this universe moving at the speed of c^2 (a light-year in 3 minutes). So those galaxies are moving at a rate faster than Postclassical doctrine can keep up with them. They are at the edge and are themselves creating space, expanding the universe. What Hubble is seeing is the original substance and is far less than 24 billion light years away from the galaxies in the opposite end.

Suppose you believe a vehicle can only travel at 60 miles an hour. You see it two miles away and conclude that it must have taken two minutes to get there. But it actually traveled at 3,600 mph and took two seconds to get there.

Through entanglement, it is possible that they are the same galaxies in each direction. Since the scientific dictators' explanation of entanglement is irrational, what it really shows is the same matter. After it goes back and forth through the underlying mother universe at c^2 and flashes in this universe at either terminal.
I wanted to go here, but was afraid it would sound like gibberish. But this is a known fact, relative to each other, some of these galaxies are moving 60 times the speed of light, that doesn't say that their light is moving 60x... but the question remains, how are we perceiving those galaxies? Wooly does an excellent job of formulating the question. Where exactly are we perceiving the galaxy? When we focus our telescope on an object 12 billion miles away, did we travel backward in time? IOW. are we seeing the object as it appears 12 billion light years away? ... Or does the light from the galaxy have to travel 12 billion years to our telescope lens? Science thinks it is the latter. I think it is the former. And I'm right, I have to be right, because starlight is dissipating big time, it isn't being shot through a LAZER, or even a parabolic dish, it is a natural wave and it dissipates real fast... those distance stars are not large enough to put out bright enough concentrations of light to be visible 12 billion light years away; it isn't the time factor, it is the space factor, those are normal stars, they become totally dark in short order, there's no light reaching 12 billion light years in distance, so it is our telescope that is traveling to their light... back in time.
 

Days

Commentator
I wanted to go here, but was afraid it would sound like gibberish. But this is a known fact, relative to each other, some of these galaxies are moving 60 times the speed of light, that doesn't say that their light is moving 60x... but the question remains, how are we perceiving those galaxies? Wooly does an excellent job of formulating the question. Where exactly are we perceiving the galaxy? When we focus our telescope on an object 12 billion miles away, did we travel backward in time? IOW. are we seeing the object as it appears 12 billion light years away? ... Or does the light from the galaxy have to travel 12 billion years to our telescope lens? Science thinks it is the latter. I think it is the former. And I'm right, I have to be right, because starlight is dissipating big time, it isn't being shot through a LAZER, or even a parabolic dish, it is a natural wave and it dissipates real fast... those distance stars are not large enough to put out bright enough concentrations of light to be visible 12 billion light years away; it isn't the time factor, it is the space factor, those are normal stars, they become totally dark in short order, there's no light reaching 12 billion light years in distance, so it is our telescope that is traveling to their light... back in time.
this is confusing as hell. Let me restate that idea the only way it makes sense...

Our telescope is traveling to the star light, so we are seeing the galaxy as it appears today.

The problem with that is simple: the light is 12 billion light years away, so how did the light get to our telescope lens? And I'm saying it didn't, our lens traveled to the starlight.
 
this is confusing as hell. Let me restate that idea the only way it makes sense...

Our telescope is traveling to the star light, so we are seeing the galaxy as it appears today.

The problem with that is simple: the light is 12 billion light years away, so how did the light get to our telescope lens? And I'm saying it didn't, our lens traveled to the starlight.
So if the two stars or galaxies emitted light 12 billion years ago, it means they were formed only a couple billion years earlier. We can tell they are young by the amount of hydrogen detected in the light. The more hydrogen, the younger the object. So this proves that the light was indeed emitted very early in time but since we can see this same type of object in every direction, how can a young universe be so vast at such an early age? The obvious answer is that 12 billion years ago the expansion we detect did reach that distance in every direction. But as you stated, the speed of light is constant so how could anything get 12 -24 billion lights apart in a scant 2-3 billion years after the Big Bang? I bet there is a youtube video on this subject somewhere. I watch a lot of these at bedtime to blow my mind away. Got any links to a physicist explaining why my observation is wrong or right?
 

Days

Commentator
So if the two stars or galaxies emitted light 12 billion years ago, it means they were formed only a couple billion years earlier. We can tell they are young by the amount of hydrogen detected in the light. The more hydrogen, the younger the object. So this proves that the light was indeed emitted very early in time but since we can see this same type of object in every direction, how can a young universe be so vast at such an early age? The obvious answer is that 12 billion years ago the expansion we detect did reach that distance in every direction. But as you stated, the speed of light is constant so how could anything get 12 -24 billion lights apart in a scant 2-3 billion years after the Big Bang? I bet there is a youtube video on this subject somewhere. I watch a lot of these at bedtime to blow my mind away. Got any links to a physicist explaining why my observation is wrong or right?
All the physicists disagree with you, and me, and we are not wrong.

Except you are saying our telescopes travel 10 billion light years to meet the last vestige of intact starlight, which has traveled 2 billion years to that point. I have never done the math, so I'm going to agree with you, but whatever it is, it has to be the telescope traveling to the starlight because the starlight simply does not make it to the telescope.

here's why:

The Stellar Wind

There are billions upon billion of stars out there, it is worse than that, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, each filled with billions of stars. And they are all broadcasting from the same nuclear explosion: fusion. We can detect their broadcast across a wide range of frequency, we can even listen to the stars burning if we tune into the frequency range of sound. Starlight isn't near as interesting to listen to as a wood fire is, but it is real enough, and we do listen to it. That's what that dish in Australia was doing... the one that NASA commandeered for the Apollo missions.

Okay, so realize, as that electromagnetic wave is traveling, it is expanding in every direction and it is dissipating, thinning, filling space, however you want to think of it. Now, think of all those other stars. Their electromagnetic waves are doing the same thing. Think how much cross traffic that is, and every star is emitting the same frequencies. So, as the starlight becomes very weak, which it does in short order, travel 50 million light years from an average star and it is no longer visible to the naked eye (maybe it is 100 million light years?) but the electromagnetic wave is still there, it is just getting real thin, real dilute, and it continues to dissipate. By the time the light from a star, 12 billion light years away, has reached us, that star's light has filled the void in every direction of a globe 24 billion light years in diameter. That's the same size as the known universe.

So what happens when the electromagnetic wave gets weak and gets hit by cross winds, stronger electromagnetic waves from other stars? The wave literally gets washed away. Trillions of galaxies of stars, closer to us than that 12 billion light year away galaxy, have long since washed away the light from that far away galaxy, the light never makes it to our telescope. So it must be the telescope that is traveling to the light, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to go here, but was afraid it would sound like gibberish. But this is a known fact, relative to each other, some of these galaxies are moving 60 times the speed of light, that doesn't say that their light is moving 60x... but the question remains, how are we perceiving those galaxies?

Where exactly are we perceiving the galaxy? When we focus our telescope on an object 12 billion miles away, did we travel backward in time? IOW. are we seeing the object as it appears 12 billion light years back in time? ... Or does the light from the galaxy have to travel 12 billion years to our telescope lens? Science thinks it is the latter. I think it is the former. And I'm right, I have to be right, because starlight is dissipating big time, it isn't being shot through a LAZER, or even a parabolic dish, it is a natural wave and it dissipates real fast...
A PhD Doesn't Earn a Living Until He Is 30 Years Old. All That Produces Is Crooks, Quacks, and Crackpots

It is gibberish only to those who have been programmed by decadent escapists scientists. Selling their minds into slavery because they're too lazy to think for themselves, they compound their uselessness by becoming authoritarians against anyone with common sense. These Quantum Quacks always close whatever rational explanations they can't deal with, which is why you follow their lead and reject the conclusion that such light gets here a lot faster than we are allowed to think. So it is not 12 billion light-years away, as in my example, the vehicle was not here 2 minutes ago, but 2 seconds ago.
 
Top