This challenges the basis of thought of a lot of science, and a larger portion of people believe in the big bang than god....
( that reminds me of this song Kooler Than Jesus )
I went with the hypothesis that the space that light goes through really IS curved (I've been a bit of a curved space denier, the universe is still generally flat though; but anyway)... and that the Eddington Experiment, which was based on the mass of the sun, really did bend space in such a way that the light could go around an object. The orange lines in the following image are lines that would have been straight, and would have been 'behind' a region of space, but, because the space is 'displaced' from it's original position (if a thing is in a place, it's placed, if it's not, it's displaced, by an amount also called a displacement). But also, that light follows true geodesics - or straight lines; although it should also be noted that these are different from the geodesics that matter follows, matter changes velocity all the time (and by non relativistic time-dilated amounts), where light does not change its velocity, and does not move from a straight line. If there was something that actually inserted a void spot in space, the rest of the space could be pushed away in a natural spring-like motion; if one considers taking a solid sphere of a unit size, and inserting a sphere of 1 unit size within that one; because the volume at a outer radius is much bigger already, the first solid sphere only has a fraction of the radius that it had at radius 1; if you also consider where where 2 moves inserting a 1 unit void in it, and 3, etc... each layer out is closer and closer to its original unit size, but never quite there except at infinity.
This causes a falloff curve of 1/r^2 in the density of the space... (I could write a whole other wall of text on just this density difference)
Special relativity accounts that clocks change... while it is based on the intention that time dilates, it's accidentally correct that spin is slower; space that is near the curvature/displacement is wider and shorter; it is stretched tangentially to the sphere, and it is compressed in a direction normal to the space; this means things have to go further laterally than vertically, and a gradient, at the bottom is slightly longer than time they spend at the top, causing a general tendancy of atomic charge forces to want to migrate in a direction.
This sort of means that the void in the space is filled with the stuff that makes particles... spinning charges; heck, when I originally expanded the hole, I ended up plotting just the difference that each point was applied, and realized that the reflection of the changes on the outside of the sphere looked very similar to the rotation curves I'd been playing with developing a math system around for the past couple years...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_ ... ngle-Angle
Only sort of the rectangular version of them, really needed to take an arc-tan sort of function on them to convert them to angles.
I did some math; recently there have been a lot of lectures that have appeared online, and I've learned some of this math that allows me to work with the 'curvature' of space that is present in the Einstein Field Equations; that is I saw them expanded for the first time, so I was able to see where the numbers were coming from, so I could build the curve to fit those curvature metrics... The Ricci Tensor/Scalar is a neat number, and is descriptive, but it's just a measurement of curvature, that there's a curve to measure is the important part.
1) I did some demos of the math, first with a single source of curving flat 3D space with T=0 instead of T=1 and increasing.... there's some explanations and links to simple demos... https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics/bl ... reDecay.md
2) This more summarizes the final application of the math. I had suspected before doing (1) that the truth would be that space IS curved, and
that that curvature causes redshift, but not because things are racing away from each other, but because of the mass of the universe that photons 'put in it rear view mirror'. https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics/bl ... NotBang.md (I should cross link these internally)
(Both documents are quite rough, more stream of consciousness than having a deliberate plan)
https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics/bl ... cments.png This is a finite example; but a infinite surface of displacements of space surrounding this the progressive additional space light goes through causes it to redshift, at a rate that would be basically constant give a universe of average density on the average; but of course that's not really true, so I'd think there would be minor variations to the CMBR just based on the various densities of space it passed through.
I expect the James Webb will reveal new galaxies that have a complex structure BEFORE the 'beginning of the universe' some 14B years ago... and have to refactor the expansion factor of space to fit the next 16B light years of stuff(for a total of 30B light years) within 14B years. And again be astounded by their complex structure.
I guess Georges Lemaitre is to blame
Catholic priest, with all that press behind him... I recently heard there was a woman responsible for computing the redshift Hubble factor stuff, but I can't find reference of her (was going to put the blame there) But then these ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ang_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law ) give a male driven history.Anyway; the math ended up being sound, and actually pretty easy to do... but you have to do it more as a plot operation on multipart functions, rather than trying to use some graphing calculator to show it; for example the X coordinate is also shifted for some (x/y/z) combination of inputs, so it can't just be a constant index going across... and the inverse function to say 'well if my X is here, then my X would have been 'this'' has been annoying to come up with.