Thread: The cosmological redshift necessarily relates to how these observations are possible.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Frank what is your take, if any, on 'Dark Matter' actually being 'Etheric Matter'?

Yup. I believe in that. If by etheric you mean astral planes and the whole enchilada.

Steph, I'll try to explain. How I came upon this idea see Micro black holes. I just did minute exercises of Wikipedia and Mind-stretching to produce gravitational waves of insight

Originally Posted by Frank

The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift.

Yes. That is exactly what I think this paper is postulating. I am working on the maths. But i also think the paper states rather neatly that Dark energy is nothing more than Gravitational pull. I think a major hole in Inflation theory is the need for Faster than Light movement of particles. This is completely counterintuitive. And never appealed to me. Tbh, it sounded like a fairytail to me the first time i heared of inflation theory.

What I did in my own thread was asserting to myself if the universe might be the same as a black hole. It occured to me that a black hole has an event horizon. I found out that this event horizon is commonly thought of as a sphere. I checked if someone else might have worked out a workable theory and that's how i stumbled upon this paper.

Going more into detail of an event horizon, I think that this paper makes a case in which the radius of the "actual" (not the visible) universe is thought of as a magnetic field. In which all objects are forced to orbit in a circular fashion. I contemplate that Quasars are the only exception. At the center of every magnetic field is a black hole. It doesn't matter what size a black hole because a black hole is singular and has no size. Bare with me please. The size of a black hole is measured only by the size of it's event horizon. It's gravitational field.

Further food for thought. The van-der-waals force of any given gravitational field has similarities with a black hole don't you think?
One simply has to think of the edge of a gravitational field as the event horizon of any given black hole.

Thinking of Quasars as massive outliners in the universe. The only way a Quasar can have such an incredible force is when it utilizes the gained momentum of falling into a singularity. Except, it does not actually fall into a singularity. Photons 'simply' slide across the singularity and shoot out into the universe as a giant beam of energy. Respectively in accordance to the spin of it's respected black hole (talking about the spin of a quasar beam). Which is respectfully in accordance to the spin of it's parent star that just imploded. A quick Wikipedia search implies; Rotating black hole

So i'm reaching a dead-end here. Time to go to bed. Fuck.. Hahahahahah.. Take it with a grain of salt. I am absolutely convinced though. Every now and then i get these gravitational bursts of motivation to further work on this theory and vent it here. Can't help myself. Hope I don't sound too crazy?

At least, your theory is legible.

The direct/real/full/actual experience of outer space as it is precludes and destroys our being, experience, and thought, including our visual experience. Moreover, the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience (including visual). Accordingly, the understanding of "outer space" is necessarily, fundamentally, and inherently limited. Indeed, what are these telescopic/astronomical observations; how are they possible? What is the basic and fundamental physics of these observations? Obviously, the understanding and experience of outer space is observer dependent.

My statements and views have been twisted and distorted at this forum in places. I seek to understanding physics in a fundamental fashion as it relates to both being and experience. This includes the physics of dream experience. This includes our direct experience of space (stabilized, typical, ordinary, and fundamental distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, and touched).

Telescopic/astronomical observations involve space that is flattened/contracted and stretched/expanded. An excellent point.

Dream experience involves space that is flattened/contracted and stretched/expanded. An excellent point.

Dream experience is fundamentally and significantly related to television. Dream experience is fundamentally and significantly related to telescopic/astronomical observations. Dream experience is fundamentally and significantly related to waking experience/waking physics.

The following applies to physics/physical experience. Most importantly. the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. Very importantly, this is consistent with dream experience. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience, we would then be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are. Dreams involve the fundamental experience of our growth and becoming other than we are. This is why dream experience is separate from, and yet it is fundamentally linked to/with, waking experience/waking physics. Dream experience grows/increases, as it is possible/potential and actual.

^^ So same old same old it is, then. What a shock. Well, Frank, at least you're consistent!

P.S.: And Frank, I know you will not answer, but I must ask: Do you cut and paste the same words over and over, or are you actually retyping them every time? Also, do you think your posts are truly answering our questions? It would be truly enlightening, I think, if you were able to honestly answer these questions...

Here is more definitive proof that I have fundamentally demonstrated inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing.

The quantum mechanical nature of matter and energy is well known. The eye is both visible and invisible. You do not see your own eye directly. It is invisible. Obviously, the eye is also visible. Vision begins invisibly inside the eye/body. The experience of the body is both invisible and visible. The eye/body is quantum mechanical in nature. Dreams involve quantum gravity and bodily experience (obviously and undeniably).

Dream experience is consistent with the experience of the eye. Dream experience is visible and invisible in balance. Accordingly, dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space.

Fundamentally and most importantly, invisible and visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance necessarilly consitutes a MIDDLE distance in/of space consistent with BOTH half gravity and half inertia.

Very importantly, while standing upright in our waking experience, FULL GRAVITY involves FULL DISTANCE in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. Consider the VISIBLE Earth/ground. (Consider the range of touch/feeling.) Touch the top of your visible head. Full gravity is full distance in/of space as it applies to both being and experience (i.e., the Earth/ground) seen, felt, and touched. This point is hugely significant. The Earth/ground is full gravity.

Full inertia would be nothing, as the direct/real/actual/full experience of outer space as it is precludes and destroys us, our thought, and our experience (including our visual experience). Outer space is full inertia.

The eye is semi-detached in relation to touch. Think. Dream experience is semi-detached in relation to touch. Another fact. The Earth/ground is attached in relation to touch. Outer space is detached/removed in relation to touch/tactile experience. It all makes sense.

Dreams are invisible. The eye is invisible. Fundamentally and most importantly, invisible and visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance necessarilly consitutes a MIDDLE distance in/of space consistent with BOTH half gravity and half inertia. Dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space consistent with half inertia and half gravity. Moreover, the invisible space above the Earth/ground is (in fact) a middle distance in/of space between full gravity (the Earth/ground) and full inertia (outer space). Half inertia and half gravity in dream experience involve the middle distance in/of space. In dreams, the involvement of half inertia is consistent with the reduction of the space by half (seen and felt/touched). Accordingly, dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with fundamentally balanced and equivalent inertial/electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy/feeling/touch. This necessarily involves half inertia and half gravity.

It pays to know the physics of dreams.



What of the following?:

Now, while waking and standing upright, gravity is felt (or coming down) in a straight line. Moreover, the Earth appears to be flat in conjunction with the experience of full gravity (as I have described previously). Accordingly, we can understand the spherical Earth/ground as being cut in half in our experience of it. This is then consistent with our experience of what is the positive half/side of gravity. Now, the invisible space above the Earth/ground does represent a space that conforms to/with the shape of the Earth/ground. Moreover and more specifically, this invisible space represents a fundamentally equivalent space that necessarily takes the form of half of a sphere (and a middle space) in relation to the fully spherical Earth. Accordingly, we are inside of the invisible semi-sphere (as this half of a sphere is plainly visible, as it is bounded by the blue sky) in relation to the Earth/ground. This balanced half (or middle) invisible space does constitute a middle or half in relation to the fully spherical Earth/ground.

Dthoughts, what do you think of my last post? The invisible space above the Earth/ground involves a middle distance in/of space. Dream experience is invisible in relation to the visible space of walking experience. Dreams balance being and experience. Dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with fundamentally balanced and equivalent [middle strength] electromagnetic/inertial/gravitational energy/force/feeling/touch. This necessarily involves half inertia and half gravity. I am positive of this.

The ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. Dreams combine, balance, and include opposites. Some advice to you. Move very carefully from the fundamentals up in your attempts to determine any/the particulars of astronomical/telescopic observations. The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift. I have proven this.

The red (the first visible color) setting sun may be understood as a balanced, fundamental, and pressurized "falling away/distancing" in relation to the Earth/ground. Notice how the space goes invisible around the red setting sun. What of the magma/lava? A relation?

Dthoughts, dream experience is quantum gravity, theoretically and actually/observationally (seen and felt/touched). It involves the ultimate theoretical and actual manifestation and demonstration of quantum gravity, in fact.

Dthoughts, you are correct in agreeing with me that dream experience is quantum gravity and that the cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift. I appreciate your feedback and support.

The following is entirely correct, and it is extremely important, highly educational, and fundamental/foundational:

Dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with fundamentally balanced and equivalent [middle strength] electromagnetic/inertial/gravitational energy/force/feeling/touch. This necessarily involves half inertia and half gravity. I am positive of this.

Dream experience is quantum gravity. Invisible and visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance necessarilly consitutes a MIDDLE distance in/of space consistent with BOTH half gravity and half inertia.

The ultimate unification of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. Dreams combine, balance, and include opposites.

*sigh*

Frank D Clown


"I'm positive this is fact, you idiots. Think about it"

frank d clown.jpg

This Frank guy is just trolling us, right?

^^ I fear he may be trolling himself...

Well said, Sageous!

What is the fundamental physics of telescopic/astronomical observations? Consider how these observations are/must be possible. The underlying and fundamental physics of the telescopic/astronomical observations must allow/account for the reality/possibility of the observations. Please consider:

The space is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened.
These telescopic/astronomical observations are significantly or fundamentally related to the physics of dreams. Dream physics/experience is that of the middle distance in/of space.
A balance of visible and invisible space along with a relation of gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism are apparent. Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand. Balance involves the center. Center and middle.

The ultimate unification of physics combines, includes, and balances opposites. Magnification, increasing gravity, increasing invisibility of space, and increasing visibility of space are necessarily at play. Dreams involve how a larger space is made smaller and how a smaller space is made larger. Outer space is full inertia. Think!!!!

The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift. That is a fact. I have proven this. Gravity is fundamental to distance in/of space as we experience it. THINK!!!!

The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift. That is a fact. I have proven this. Gravity is fundamental to distance in/of space as we experience it. THINK!!!!

Astronomical/telescopic observations are significantly and fundamentally related to the physics of dream experience (i.e., dream experience).

The real/actual/true/full/direct experience of outer space as it is precludes and destroys us, our experience, our thought, and the/our entire visual experience. Outer space is full inertia. The space is black, we are not touching anything/outer space, and there is weightlessness. It all makes sense.

The space is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened. More is seen at once over [comparatively] a larger/greater distance, and this also involves/consitutes a [comparatively] smaller distance in/of space in order to be able to see/survey such enormous distance at once.

The space is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened. This clearly relates to and involves gravity/gravitational effect. The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift. I have proven this.

Full gravity is full distance in/of space seen, felt, and touched. Being and experience. VISIBLE SPACE.
(Invisible space is between the Earth/ground and outer space.)

Dream experience is half gravity and half inertia consistent with the experience of the middle distance in/of space (seen, felt, and touched). Dream experience is possible/potential and actual. INVISIBLE SPACE. Being and experience. Dreams balance being and experience.

Full inertia/outer space is nothing (seen, felt, and touched). Being and experience.
Outer space is fully detached in relation to touch/tactile experience.

Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance is the middle distance (necessarily, fundamentally, and logically) in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Vision begins invisibly inside the eye/body. Notice the seamless or undivided whole in/with the visual experience of the eye/body.

by Author Frank DiMeglio

LSD dream emulator makes more sense than this.

What of the "straight line" telescoping of these astronomical/telescopic observations? Inertia comes to mind, yes. However, there has to be an "anchoring"/involvement here with gravity as well. What of inertial and gravitational equivalency? How are these astronomical/telescopic observations fundamentally possible and visible?

The physicists have no idea of what "dark matter" and "dark energy" are, can be, should be, or need to be.

The field of vision (peripheral vision) is relatively reduced/telescoped when looking downward at the Earth/ground.

Now, red is the first color. Magnification is involved. Notice that the sky goes invisible around the red setting sun. Can we compare this to the blue sky, small sun, and bright light area surrounding this relatively small yellow/white sun?

Is the red sun averaging (and fundamental to) these three manifestations? The red setting sun is about the size of the middle manifestation (i.e., the white/yellow area around the sun when it is high in the sky). Notice the flatness of the red setting sun.

Consider: RoYgBiv

The ultimate unification of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites.

Consider my entire position together with this recent post folks. Thanks.

Comments and questions are welcome please.

Attention: No need to look or stare at the sun folks. It may result in serious damage to your eyes.

The link with the observer cannot be ignored regarding these telescopic/astronomical observations. It is important as well that more is visible when compared to what is seen in the blackness of the night sky. Again (and moreover), do and can we ever experience outer space "as it is"? Gravity has to be involved here. So, what of the fact that the space is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened?

See the gravitational effect or manifestation of pressure?

I love it. I can see the gravitational and inertial effect here. The space is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened?

The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift.

Hi gab. This thread is real big. I appreciate the opportunity to participate at this forum. Can you promote this thread please?

Time is ultimately dependent upon instantaneity and inertial, gravitational, and electromagnetic balancing. All life is lived in the present. At bottom, instantaneity is fundamental to physics, time/duration, and extensiveness.

Space that is larger and smaller on balance indicates gravity and inertia increasing together....magnification, and more invisible and more visible on balance. The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift.

See how all of this relates to the telescoping of space in astronomical/telescopic observations (and the cosmological/gravitational redshift)?

gab, this thread is seriously important.

I have clearly and plainly proven that the cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift.

Clear proof that the cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift:

Space that is larger and smaller AND more visible and more invisible on balance involves magnification and a flattening/contraction and stretching/expansion of the space that necessarily involves increasing transparency/invisibility. (Outer space is flat.) Is this not a telescoping effect? The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift.

One has to consider how these telescopic/astronomical observations are actually possible.

^^ Here are some straightforward, non-sarcastic,. non-insulting questions, Frank; I hope you choose to answer rather than ignore:

How is this clear proof?

Could you elaborate, in simpler terms (perhaps with examples) on the meaning of "...a flattening/contraction and stretching/expansion of the space that necessarily involves increasing transparency/invisibility" ?

What does it mean that outer space is flat?

By progressively making the [observed] visual experience more visible, this is necessarily related to the cosmological redshift (i.e., to gravitation). The cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift. We have to consider how these telescopic/astronomical observations are fundamentally possible.

Sageous, please see the above. Also, carefully consider the flattening/contraction and stretching/expansion of the space. Think about it please. Tell me where you see merit in my full position here. How do you see what I am saying here? Really, Dthoughts is the only one who is offering any constructive and helpful advancement of these ideas. Telescopic/astronomical observations are significantly related with dream experience/dream physics.

^^ Well, I guess that can be considered an answer, Frank; thanks!

What I see in your full position is that you are attaching qualities to space that are either nonexistent or just a small aspect of a greater whole... to do so omits more than it adds. I think I may get where you are concluding that outer space is flat, but why do you think that?

Sageous, you are not properly understanding what I have written. Also, full inertia is full electromagnetism, isn't it?

Originally Posted by FrankDiMeglio

Sageous, you are not properly understanding what I have written. Also, full inertia is full electromagnetism, isn't it?

Ok I guess I'll bite this time. What do you mean by that? I have to admit I have not read the entire thing. Honestly, I think you are all over the place, but I guess I will comment on this one line. Since I can atleast try and disect that one.

As far as I know, Inertia is a property of an object. Newton said that if an object has no external forces applied on them, they will not change their velocity and simply keep going on forever, in a straight line. It is however commonly used to define the "resistance" of an object to change it's motion. So I guess by full inertia you mean, an object that does not get influenced by external forces?

Ok now as far as my understanding goes, Electromagnitism is one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Now for you to say they are the same thing. That is a rather odd statement. I can think of many things not right with this, but let me start with just the most obvious.

Inertia is a property an object with mass, velocity and direction can have. A golfbal for example. Electromagnetism is not an object. It has no mass. It does not go in a straight line. It doesn't even go in any line. It doesn't have lines. It is just something completely different.

Perhaps this is just my lack of understanding though. I would love it if you could explain.

I could discern from the rather obscure and beautifully chaotic thoughts is that Frank is referring to the properties of some kind of unified field. It is not merely the characteristic that objects might present but the very fabric which make things come into existence and appear the way they are in our consciousness through the interaction of the objects(mass and energy) with the field (gravity, eletro-magnetism). Inertia would be the opposite pair of gravity I believe. Please correct me Frank.

Gravity is fundamental to distance in/of space as we experience it. This has to do with the place of human consciousness in the field. It may also be linked with the visible light spectrum range which we are able to perceive. It is our place between the micro and micro cosmos. We perceive the things as we do because of the constraints/confinment of gravity on which our body and minds developed themselves in. If we were of the size of a molecule we would have a different place in the spectrum and a different grasp of reality. Reality would be completely different, with different physics maybe.


The space is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened. This clearly relates to and involves gravity/gravitational effect. In your vision, space is a surface that may spread or contract from what kind of central point? Will it exist forever, will it expand forever or will contract back to singularity? Is there a central singularity?

Appreciate your attention.

The cosmological redshift IS a gravitational redshift. That is certainly a fact.

Fundamentally, electromagnetism involves balanced attraction and repulsion.

The progressive increase regarding what (or how much) is visible in telescopic/astronomical observations is consistent with the gravitational redshift. A space that is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened does suggest a balance of gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism.