www.physicsofuniverse.com

There is the present hypothesis that space is expanding and that light gets stretched into the red. This hypothesis has been developed from Hubble’s Law which is considered to be the measurement of light being stretched into the red as space is expanding. A whole field of “weird or strange” science has been developed from this conclusion such as the metric expansion of space, the sure evidence for the big bang model, and more.

The Red Shift Theory (see video) developed from the conclusions of the LED experiment shows us that light energy detected is either weak or strong. Weakest energy for colour is red – that is why the further out we look the more it shifts into the red. The light energy seen is weaker thus redder.

It is important to know that in the visual electromagnetic spectrum blue is a higher energy colour and red is the weakest energy colour.

I submit a new hypothesis (for testing) gained from understanding the LED experiment results: The red shift is not caused from space expanding but because the energy detected is weaker and weaker.

Light is not an all powerful force that goes on forever but there is a limitation to its strength. If you are nearby you see all its force if you are far away you only see part of it. It is our detection of weaker and weaker energy that is the cause of the red shifting for very distance objects.

Yes the Doppler Effect can be observed for nearby stars and galaxies but the Doppler Effect energy is weak and does not extend pass a certain point of influence. Due to the long distances involved after a certain point its effect is no longer detectable. The stronger measurement is instead affected by the energy level detected by the Earth observer and not the Doppler Effect. The light has not been stretched but the longer waves are the recording of weaker energy levels from distances light sources.

There is no such thing as expanding space pulling the galaxies and stars away from each observer in the universe. That is an old ideology that cannot be supported scientifically and destroyed from the results of the LED experiment with observations in the universe to back it up, and electromagnetic spectrum and light energy mathematics.

I challenge you to try and disprove the new hypothesis above in the comments and I predict it can’t be done. Try to support the stretching of light with, or the expansion of space in the comments and I will scientifically show you how illogical your arguments are.

Mankind has a history of being confused in understanding the facts – stretched light is one of them – it is weak light energy we are seeing.

To mankind the Doppler Effect seemed to be the only cause for the red shift, but there were the abnormalities that didn’t add up. For me it was; I perceived an expanding universe (which will be scientifically explained later) that was not an expanding cloud that was speeding away at an increasing rate at the edges. I tried to fit the structure of the universe I perceived into the model of the red shift described and I could not make it work.

I knew the Doppler Effect had to be wrong and the universe I wanted to describe could not be justified till I disproved the Doppler Effect scientifically with another reason. I then set my mind to find the true cause of the red shift that took about six months of research and sincere prayer to God asking to be the one to discover the true cause for seeing the red shift of distance objects in the universe.

Christmas 2005 I received the Christmas gift I wished for – a crystal CN Tower that included a 3 colour LED battery powered pedestal. The LED rotated in lighting up – blue, yellow and red. One colour would light up then dim to off and then the next colour would light up, dim to off, and then the next colour in rotation. It was beautiful and I left it on to admire it.

January 2006 I walked into the dark room where the CN crystal tower was and noticed the blue LED was not working but was black in its turn in the 3 colour cycle. I thought that is strange and wasn’t sure if the electronic circuit was defected or if the blue LED was defected. I left it operating. Later within a couple of weeks I again walked into the black room and saw only the red LED working. In an instance flash I knew I was seeing the true cause of the red shift. We only see red because the light energy reaching us is too dim to see the blue. From there the Red Shift Theory developed and grew to illuminate the true cause of the red shift and unlock other mysteries of the universe (which will be revealed later – stay tuned for more to come).

by Gilbert L. Beaudry

The Scientific Method refers to various formulized systems of empirical, investigative, and/or rational methodologies, including but not necessary limited to; provable experiments, various reasoning, comparative logic, supported conclusions, measurements, mathematics, observations, testing, analyzing, and sampling - used to support a scientific fact, theory, law or hypothesis.   

There should be a complete understanding which body of Scientific Method is used to support a scientific fact, theory, law or hypothesis.  Employing them all would be the best proof.

There must be a distinction made between the quality of Scientific Method used, when analyzing between competing theories, laws, hypothesizes, or scientific facts.  If one competing model is supported by more sets of the Scientific Method it should be the accepted likely model of what is the universe.

There also must be a distinction when no Scientific Method is being used for supporting a stated scientific fact, law, theory, or hypothesis. 

There should be no more statements made in astrophysics that are not proven by a Scientific Method system of investigative empirical rational scientific coherent methodology.

Scientific Method should also include scientific elimination of irrational statements.  

by Gilbert L. Beaudry 

The description of what is our universe is confusing and generally ambiguous.  There is a need to develop in science methodology a scientific framework for providing clarity, and a way to judge what kind of universe is being proposed for our understanding.  

There are various ideas, models, science statements, hypothesizes, mathematical calculations, theories, etc. that are used to describe the universe. Which ones are useful?  Which ones are the best? Which ones are out to lunch?  Which ones are reasonable?  Which ones are imaginations?  Which ones are weak?

The public and the science community require a system to judge between the different ideas offered for acceptance or consideration for what is our real universe to weed out the junk, determine working models, and recognize the best description for models, theories, mathematical calculations, or for bservations. 

I propose a framework of 4 different classifications to judge what type of universe is being described.  There is only one universe but there are 4 different classifications for scrutiny and critical analysis to determine the quality and credibility for our best description and workings of the universe.

1. The Visual Universe.  The Visual Universe is our best impression of what is seen by the human visual senses.  It should be recognized that the past is repeatedly littered with wrong conclusions by first impressions of what was visually seen.  Scientifically it should be recognized as a continuous on-going problem and a fundamental human flaw.   Historically wrong visual impressions can be corrected or revised as science advanced.  I propose the Visual Universe is basically an incomplete understanding of the universe because of our limitations of what we visually see and our human limitation for making correct conclusions.

4. The Mathematical Proposed Universe.  This universe is purely experimental mathematical science; such as string theory, some aspects of quantum mechanics, and others.