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

Please see the thread "Why dream experience is fundamental and so very important" under Extended Discussion. Specifically, my last post there will be quite helpful, as some of you say that I am not presenting the "big picture" clearly.

This is my last post there: THE ULTIMATE NATURE OF DREAMS AND REALITY: WHY DREAMS FUNDAMENTALLY UNIFY PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE (posted Oct. 6, 2014). This post is super educational, and it is extremely important.

The physics of both dream experience and waking experience are to be considered carefully in evaluating my statements in this thread.

Thank you. Comments and questions are quite welcome.

Think in terms of the extensiveness of space here folks. There is clear merit in this thread. Increased inertia and increased gravity. Think of the pressure containment/reduction/balancing. The gravitational redshift is a cosmological redshift.

This thread of mine is also extremely important, and it is ignored here. How pathetic and bizarre !

Read my opening post here. It is most excellent and important.

Think of how vision/visual experience is fundamentally possible. Also consider that the space/sky around the sun when it is setting (and orange/red) also goes invisible. Gravity involves pressure. This image of the sun is visible in this case. However, the sun when it is overhead is basically/significantly not visible; as it will blind you. Consider again how vision is possible. Consider gravity. Consider electromagnetism. Consider inertia. Look downward. Consider the orange lava inside the Earth/ground. Interesting.

by Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

This thread is also by the author: Why dream experience is fundamental and so very important

It is most excellent, and it is helpful here.

I have proven that the cosmological redshift is (and must be) a gravitational redshift. That is huge news in science.

Huge news, right. You are the first to read and think about things in science that have already been published, which means they have already gone past the hypothesis stage and been rigorously tested and reviewed by the rest of the scientific community. Frank, are you sure of how science works? I can tell by your posts that if you have even gone to college at all, they may have only included an introductory class or two of any kind of class in science. You have not proven anything because you have provided no data on your discoveries, have not published your experiments' standards, the method of investigation, or submitted it for peer review. You have proven nothing. You have claimed something.

I know your posts likely aren't serious at all, but let's assume for a minute that they are. If you want to be taken seriously by any kind of scientist, you have to research the methods and standards for submitting scientific findings and how you "proved" your findings to be correct so that other scientists may reproduce the results to make sure you haven't made a mistake or that other scientists who have tried to recreate the experiments are making mistakes or over-looking anything.

If you truly believe what you think you have discovered about the universe is a scientific discovery (which of course you would call it a theory only after it has been accepted by your peers, not the truth) and that you have figured out something that hasn't already been investigated, thought of, or discovered then you are sorely mistaken and you really need to get over yourself.

How many of you agree with me that the cosmological redshift is a gravitational redshift, and why ?

With these deep space telescopic/astronomical observations, the increase in inertia and the telescoped/narrowed and lengthened/stretched space (with increased invisibility/transparency), along with the fact that more is actually seen imply more gravity. We have to consider how these observations are fundamentally possible, an important point. We have to consider gravity and inertia in balance. We have to consider attraction and repulsion in balance.

by Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

No.

Bad Frank