OLBERS' PARADOX - Explanation for the Dark Night Sky

INTRODUCTION

Mathematicians claim to have an old, simple question that helps them justify the Creation of the Universe. The question is called Olber’s Paradox, after German astronomer Heinrich W. Olbers; and usually stated as follows:

Q: Why is the night sky dark and not bright like the Sun?

The reason this question is so important, they argue, is because its answer can tell us about the distribution of stars and galaxies in the Universe and henceforth lead us to conclude whether the Universe is eternal or had a moment of Creation. What Mathematicians don’t realize is that Creation is a claim, an alleged event that requires a Theory to rationally explain the mechanism by which space and matter “could” have morphed from the void. Using Olbers’ Paradox to justify Creation is an old ad-hoc parlor trick from those who can’t justify their theories. It’s no different than invoking the beautiful clouds, trees and flowers to justify God's Creation.

This article will explain why the darkness of the night sky has absolutely nothing to do with any alleged Creation (Big Bang), expansion of space, Doppler Shift or even with an eternal Universe. The reason why the night sky is dark has to do with Physics, not because God’s Big Bang Creation made it that way!

We will explain how Olbers’ Paradox was flawed from inception and how its popularity became a vehicle for Creationists to push their Big Bang or God agenda unto the unsuspecting public. Our analysis of the paradox will also enable us to critically reason and rationally justify the overall structure of the Universe.

The Mathematical mainstream has never understood the physical implications of Olbers’ Paradox. They haven’t analyzed it in realistic physical terms (i.e. using Physics). That’s why they don’t have a physical mechanism that rationally explains the darkness of the night sky without invoking magic & contradictions. This article presents a physical mechanism - so the reader is in for a surprise!

Scroll to Continue

Ultimate Guide to Secondhand Shopping

Centripetal Force Easily Explained

Why I’ve decided to become a Dolphins fan if the Lions win the Super Bowl this year

HISTORY OF THE PARADOX

This problem had been raised since 1577 by astronomer Thomas Digges, who published his “Perfect Description of the Celestial Spheres” in London in 1576. Digges boldly dismantled the long-held Aristotelian Earth-centered sphere of fixed stars, and randomly scattered the stars throughout infinite space. In doing this he noticed a problem with his model which forms the earliest description of what is now known as Olbers’ Paradox: Why did the now infinite number of stars not make the night sky bright?

Kepler posed this problem in 1610 and argued that the Universe must be bounded with a finite number of stars because, otherwise, an infinite number of stars irrespective of distance would sooner or later illuminate every possible line of sight in the night sky. But Kepler’s proposal of a ‘bounded’ Universe was contradictory because it’s impossible for space to have any boundaries or borders.

Wilhelm Olbers resuscitated the question and stated the paradox as follows:

"Should there really be suns in the whole infinite space, they can be at approximately the same distance from one another, and consequently the whole sky should be as bright as the sun. Clearly, each line which can conceivably be drawn from our eye will necessarily end on one of the stars and each point on the sky would send us starlight, that is, sunlight." -- Wilhelm Olbers (On the Transparency of the Interstellar Medium, published in the 1826 Astronomical Yearbook)

We must not forget that Olbers’ Paradox is predicated on the following 3 basal assumptions:

1. Space is unbounded and limitless (as described by the term ‘infinite’).
2. A homogeneous and isotropic Universe with stars uniformly distributed throughout unbounded space; i.e. no galaxies!
3. The population of stars extends forever into limitless space, so every possible line of sight (i.e. pixel) in the sky ends on a star.

Olbers concludes: The whole night sky should be ablaze like the Sun!

Q: So how can the night sky possibly be dark given such a seemingly-bulletproof argument from Olbers? I mean, where have all the stars gone?

Q: Could Olbers’ proposal be a misrepresentation founded on flawed premises?

We will investigate Olbers’ proposal in detail. But we’ll first examine how the Mathematical establishment took stabs at this alleged Paradox.

THE MATHEMATICAL ESTABLISHMENT NEVER SOLVED OLBERS’ PARADOX

The solutions proposed by Mathematicians miss the mark entirely because they don’t address the core assumptions in Olbers’ Paradox. Instead, they've stealthily employed the popularity of this alleged paradox as a vehicle to promote their own self-serving agenda on Creation. They irrationally claim that Big Bang and the expansion of space solve the paradox.

For instance, they assume space to be a dynamic entity that can grow, warp and expand. But in Olbers’ Paradox, space is nothing; space can’t move! Mathematicians assume the opposite and solve an irrelevant paradox. They’ve applied the paradox in the wrong context! This tactic allows them to use a paradox which “apparently” no human has ever solved, to boast its alleged Big Bang solution to the unsuspecting public.

In an attempt to cover all their bases and add weight to their claim of Creation, they offer two main theories for why the night sky is not lit up like the Sun:

Theory #1: Big Bang Creationism

If the Universe was infinitely old, they argue, the light from stars at extreme distances would have already reached us, even if they were 5000 billion light years away. This hasn’t happened because we live inside a spherical shell of "Observable Universe" which has radius equal to the lifetime of the Universe. Because the Universe is finitely old, has finite number of stars, only finitely many stars can be observed within a given volume of space visible from Earth. The density of stars within this finite volume is sufficiently low that any line of sight from Earth is unlikely to reach a star.

They also argue that light from the farthest stars just hasn't had time to reach us yet because the speed of light is finite. This is the Light Horizon proposal which argues that some of the distant light is below our time horizon. Mathematicians tell us that future generations will burn up when all the distant light "dawns” upon them. These are the ridiculous conclusions they reach when they don't understand what medium can possibly mediate the effects of light.

It is ironic how their arguments from Creation are contradicted by the same observations they employed to assert Creation. These circular arguments have been exposed by NASA which used the Hubble to observe galaxies close to the alleged “edge” of the Universe. With every better telescope they deploy, the deeper their field of resolution and the more galaxies they discover. Technology is the overwhelming limiting factor here, not the number of galaxies out there. The density of galaxies, finite speed of light and Creation are circular contradictions which have nothing to do with their argument against the paradox.

Mathematicians fail to understand that if the Universe was Created and finite in time, as they allege, then ‘the’ Universe would be an object with a definite boundary. All objects have shape and a boundary. What is beyond the alleged boundary of ‘the’ Universe? More space? More matter? God perhaps? Any such notion as the Creation of space and matter leads to ontological contradictions. Any sort of Creation, whether under the guise of God, the singularity, primeval atom, virtual particles, Quantum fluctuations, etc. is necessarily impossible, as explained in the following articles:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-BIG-LIE

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIBLE-Space-Matter-Motion-are-ETERNAL

Theory #2: Space is expanding.

Mathematicians have dogmatically decreed the Universe to be expanding. Hubble’s Law asserts that stars further away from us recede more quickly than closer stars. They have a higher recession velocity because space is allegedly expanding at a greater rate and pushing them apart quicker. Consequently, the light from these stars is more red-shifted than those closer to us. Since redshift results from an increase in wavelength (ala Doppler Sound Effect), they argue that light from distant stars has been so red-shifted that it’s no longer in the visible part of the spectrum. So we see no light coming from these stars, accounting for the dark regions of the night sky.

They may sound persuasive to the layman, but their fellow Mathematicians, Edward Harrison (Darkness at Night, 1987 Harvard University Press) and Paul Wesson (1989J. Brit. Astron. Soc.9910) have calculated the expansion of the Universe to diminish the intensity of starlight by only a factor of ~2. This is far short of the exponential factor of ~10^10 by which the night sky is darker than the surface of the Sun. This clearly contradicts the expansion of space and the Doppler Shift arguments. If the members of the same establishment contradict each other, then what does it say about their theories which are pushed as “proven truths” unto the unsuspecting public?

What’s hilarious is how the Deep Field Hubble photos show a huge number of very faint galaxies that are blue-shifted. Shouldn't these extremely distant galaxies be red-shifted after 13+ billion years of space expansion? Mathematicians are dumbfounded as to why these galaxies at the edge of the Universe are approaching us. Isn’t space at the edge of the Universe supposed to expand faster than the speed of light and redshift these galaxies? According to Inflation Theory, the further a galaxy is from us, the faster the recessional speed, and the larger its Doppler redshift. It is mathematically impossible for these very distant galaxies to be blue-shifted! Obviously Doppler Shift is not an indicator of expansion in the least bit, which renders their beloved Creationist theories of Big Bang & Inflation as unscientific:

“Only the most distant galaxies and those moving at speeds far above average emit light that arrives with a perceptible blue tinge.” – Jerry Coffey, Universe Today

We even have photos from the edge of the Universe where galaxies appear red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet or any color in-between, regardless of whether they are approaching or receding. Mathematicians attempt to double-talk around these issues with yet more theories:

“Elliptical galaxies typically appear yellow-red, which is in contrast to the distinct blue tinge of mostspiral galaxies. In spirals, this blue color a colour emanates largely from the young, hot stars in their spiral arms.” -- Wiki

But the jury isn’t fooled! No matter what color of light these ellipticals and spirals emit, this color MUST absolutely redshift according to Inflation & Doppler theory. The jury will relentlessly pound this issue into their heads until they begin using their brains instead of their calculators. Mathematicians are speechless and cannot explain any of these observations. They prefer you don’t ask them these very painful questions. Their Doppler Shift theory is truly pathetic!

Using their Doppler nonsense, Mathematicians calculated the Milky Way galaxy’s Methuselah star, which is more formally known as HD 140283, to be older than the Universe at 16+ billion years old.

Furthermore, they claim that light from very distant galaxies isn’t reaching us because the Universe is expanding orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. Those galaxies are being pushed away from us at a rate > c. But the Hubble telescope, when taking a 10-night exposure, does indeed find more galaxies "in the darkest part of the sky”; close to the alleged “edge” of the Universe. Not only that, but with each new powerful telescope they launch, they are able to detect more and more previously undetectable galaxies. They grind better lenses, mirrors and employ better technology so they can see more VISIBLE LIGHT from the extreme depths of space. Why do we need such powerful telescopes to see this visible light? Why doesn’t it light up the night sky….even a wee bit? They pathetically contradict themselves!

In November 2012, NASA discovered the most distant galaxy ever, MACS0647-JD. “The object is observed 420 million years after the big bang…Its light has traveled 13.3 billion years to reach Earth.” (NASA: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/distance-record.html)

How can the “young light” from such a distant galaxy at the supposed “edge” of the Big Bang possibly be viewable within the visible spectrum? According to their theory, space expansion should have red-shifted its light deep into the invisible range by now! And since Big Bang is predicated on Doppler Shift, their castle in the sand is awash. What a contradictory mess…the public doesn’t deserve this nonsense!

Obviously their Doppler Shift theory is extremely flawed and not a reliable indicator of galactic advance or recession. Mathematicians are even debating amongst themselves that the blueshift of Andromeda may not indicate its advance toward us. And these are just tidbits of the countless contradictions within the Doppler Shift & Inflation theories. Buyer beware - educate yourself – gullibility is not intelligence!

But let’s be honest; anybody with critical reasoning skills who understands Physics can rationally explain why it is impossible for the Universe or for space to expand:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-Universe-is-NOT-Expanding

The Mathematicians assume that in a non-expanding eternal Universe, light reaching us from distant stars and galaxies would stay at the same emitted wavelength during its whole trip. They come to these ridiculous conclusions because they don’t have a mediator for light. They are perpetually lost in their contradictions because they have no rational Theory for light that can JUSTIFY their statements!

Later we explain the physical mechanism by which light redshifts and blueshifts in a non-expanding Universe. You will be surprised at Mother Nature’s simplistic mechanism for this phenomenon.

But let’s consider their key assertion: the red-shifting of light. What EXACTLY do they mean? What alleged medium stretched its wavelength? This is a key issue because it will either make or break their argument. If they cannot tell the audience in the Physics Conference what they mean by such an assertion, then their Doppler Shift and Inflation theories are worthless. In Physics we don’t accept statements like “nudge, nudge….wink, wink….ya know what I mean by light being red-shifted into longer wavelengths!” Sorry, perhaps this elusive and equivocating language is the norm in Religion, but not in Physics! If you cannot explain you aren’t doing Physics. You are doing Religion.

This article will present a physical mechanism to explain without contradictions why most of the galaxies appear red-shifted, while others appear blue or other colors in the visible spectrum. But before we can understand this mechanism, we will present a rational Hypothesis for light! As we’ll see in the next section, Mathematicians have concocted these ridiculous stabs at Olbers’ Paradox because they have a malleable Hypothesis for light.

THE MATHEMATICIAN’S MALLEABLE HYPOTHESIS FOR LIGHT

They have several clever tricks to convince you to swallow their theories. They propose that, depending on their particular line of argumentation, the mediator of light can either be a particle (i.e. 0D photon), ‘a’ wave (i.e. a concept) or ‘a’ wavicle (i.e. a concept). What do these 3 irreconcilable proposals for light have to do with reality? Humans cannot impose their contradictory notions and rules on reality. They need to follow the Scientific Method and first Hypothesize an entity that is physically capable of mediating all of the effects of light. The Theory will rationally explain the physical mechanism by which this entity mediates light phenomena. Physics is not about invoking ontologically different mediators for light whenever it suits your argument. That’s what they do in Religion.

Will the real mediator of light please stand up?

Is Light a Stream of Particles?

The mediator of light is not comprised of discrete 0D photons because matterless entities do not exist. Even a 3D photon cannot mediate the effects of light because such bullets are subject to collisions. Light-on-light experiments confirm that no collisions are possible because there is no constructive interference when laser beams cross each other. Bullets of light don’t scatter everywhere. None of the slit experiments or polarization can be explained with particles. Refraction can’t be explained either because it is impossible for a photon to magically speed-up to ‘c’ after it exits a prism. But most importantly, it is impossible for light to be a stream of discrete particles because such entities cannot simulate Maxwell’s equation: c = frequency x wavelength (c = ƒ λ). The particle hypothesis for light is dead. No such mediator can possibly account for light.

Is Light a Series of Waves or Wavicles?

As for waves and wavicles, they are not standalone entities. Waves are disturbances that only propagate within a medium. It is the medium itself that is ‘waving’ (i.e. transversely, longitudinally or torsionally). So obviously, the mediator for light is not ‘a’ wave. And ‘a’ wavicle is ontologically impossible because no entity can be a particle and ‘a’ wave at the same time. No such standalone entities as ‘waves’ can possibly exist. The wave & wavicle hypotheses for light are dead. In fact, Schrödinger's wave mechanics did not question nor dismiss the ontology or medium of these waves. But Schrödinger had to call this UNKNOWN medium something; so he referred to it as ‘psi’, from the Greek letter Ψ.

Mathematicians always use fancy Greek letters to mean: “I have no proposal for a rational mediator for that phenomenon. So please don’t ask me to explain the physical mechanism of that phenomenon!”

So, What’s Left of Their Doppler Shift Theory?

Now that we’ve unraveled the Mathematician’s malleable Hypothesis for light, we can understand why their Doppler Shift Theory is unjustifiable - it has no underlying mediator for light. Sound uses air as its medium of propagation. What medium does light use? It certainly can’t be air, so how can the Doppler Effect for Sound be applicable in such a medium-less system? What makes the system work if not a medium to act as a transport highway for light?

Furthermore, since Doppler Shift is purported be “a consequence of the expansion of space” (NASA: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/distance-record.html), such a proposal is ontologically impossible! Space is not an object, has no shape or border; and is impossible to expand. Obviously the Doppler Shift Theory is complete bunk because it cannot physically account for redshift, blueshift, or any other color/frequency shift observed.

Mathematicians are in the business of working with tautologies. Math is a pure tautology but fortunately, reality isn’t! Reality is not predicated on these subjective rules that humans decree in order to excuse their lack of understanding. When one decrees reality to be complex or irrational, he is telling you in no uncertain terms that it is “he” who is confused and irrational. He admits to not having spent the time to brainstorm the critical issues nor does he care to do so. Instead he wants you to swallow any ridiculous assertion he ascribes to reality, because after all: reality is mysterious and our interpretation of our observations prove it!

Science couldn’t care less about the subjectively-interpreted observations of self-righteous human apes. If it did, then the observations in the Bible would be Science. Science is divorced from human confusion and opinion. Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained with the Scientific Method, not with irrationalities. Intellectual honesty and objectivity is the protocol in Science. There is no magic in the Universe. Only lazy irrational humans propose magical 0D particles and conceptual waves for natural phenomena!

OLBERS’ PROPOSAL FOR THE UNIVERSE IS FATALLY FLAWED!

Let’s have a look at Olbers’ assumptions once again:

1. Space is unbounded and limitless (as described by the term ‘infinite’).
2. A homogeneous and isotropic Universe with stars uniformly distributed throughout unbounded space; i.e. no galaxies!
3. The population of stars extends forever into limitless space, so every possible line of sight (i.e. pixel) in the sky ends on a star.

Assumption #1 is justifiable!

We can critically reason that space is not an object because space has no shape, no border/boundary or limit. For if it did, then what is outside this alleged border? More space? Maybe God? Maybe some magic? Space is boundless. It is contradictory to argue otherwise!

Assumption #2 is flawed!

Stars are not uniformly distributed throughout the Universe. Neither does the Universe look the same from all directions. Stars are clumped together into galactic islands we call “galaxies”. And galaxies are not uniformly distributed; their distances are varied and their distribution is unpredictable. God did not create a perfectly symmetrical, homogeneous and isotropic Universe. Any such claims are unjustifiably concocted by the idealistic nature of mankind.

Assumption #3 is flawed!

It is impossible for the population of stars to extend forever in boundless space. Space is the antithesis of matter because the Universe is a conceptual binary system: matter vs. no-matter (i.e. objects vs. space).

Any attempt to rationalize an unlimited (some say “infinite”) amount of matter will instantly contradict itself. The Universe cannot possibly be comprised of unlimited stars, galaxies or anything else. For if did, then there would be no space as every little bit of it would be a star. Stars would have no elbow room to move and would combine into one. In such a scenario, the Universe would be a conglomerated infinite star. But this is ontologically impossible because no such object can possibly exist. Why? Because “infinite” objects have no shape and no boundary – they are contradictory!

Object: that which has shape.

Space: that which lacks shape.

Now we can use these two words consistently (i.e. Scientifically). Matter cannot spontaneously lose Length, Width and Height and morph into space (i.e. nothing). Conversely, space cannot surreptitiously acquire Length, Width and Height in zero-time and morph into an object (matter). Matter not only has no way of inducing itself from the vacuum, but cannot leave space. Space has no border for matter to cross or exit.

Space is the largest prison never built. Not even God can cross over and escape that which has no boundaries! Poor God is trapped here together with the rest of us.

Therefore, the amount of matter in the Universe is constant. The Universe is the only conceivable perpetual machine. It is so because space has no boundaries. Matter not only cannot convert into space, but has literally 'nothing' to cross into – no boundary and no magical “dimension” where it can escape!

The population of stars certainly does not extend forever into unbounded space, as is tacitly assumed in order to formulate Olbers’ Paradox. This is the primary issue of contention from Mathematicians and Religionists. And these same individuals use Olbers’ Paradox to make their argument for Creation (Big Bang or God) by setting up a STRAWMAN argument to attack an eternal Universe. Mathematicians erroneously assume that an eternal Universe must be comprised of an “infinite” amount of stars. Infinities are irrational concepts and impossible in reality. Since the Universe is comprised of a CONSTANT amount of matter in unbounded space, it is impossible for every line of sight in the night sky to end on a star - unless of course, God systematically arranged all celestial objects around a firmament. Clearly, neither Olbers nor the Mathematicians after him were able to reason this important conclusion.

Conclusion: Once the critical issues are analyzed, Olbers’ Paradox gets reduced to a mere flawed proposal that has sent Mathematicians & Religionists on a wild goose chase for hundreds of years! Both groups have used the paradox as a vehicle to push their various theories of Creation. None of them have offered a correct answer to the problem, except for Thomas Digges and Isaac Newton!

THE SOLUTION TO OLBERS’ PARADOX IS PREDICATED ON DISTANCE!

Obviously, the night sky is about as bright as the Mathematicians that are staring at it! The question is “WHY?”

The reason why the night sky is dark has to do primarily with: DISTANCE! As light propagates across distances, it is affected by two physical mechanisms which make objects appear smaller and simultaneously fade their light near or beyond the invisible spectrum:

1. Convergence of Light Rays: Light rays converge and superimpose over long distances. This dramatically reduces the quantity of effective light signals propagating towards the Earth and explains why objects appear so small in the sky, requiring the use of telescopes. Many assume that light rays cone-out over large distances. If they did, then objects should appear larger over distance. The cone effect or “spill” is characteristic of the architectural properties of the light source assembly, be it a bulb, laser diode, flashlight reflector, etc. Light propagates rectilinearly, so light “rays” have no choice but to converge together as they propagate from their source to their target object when the distance between them increases.
2. Tired Light: Light propagates at lower wavelengths (i.e. redshifts) over distance as verified by the Harvard Tower Experiment. Tired Light Theory accounts for the blueshift and redshift for approaching and receding galaxies. The shifting of EM frequency explains why light fades over large distances, even when considering the direction and speed of galaxies.

NEWTON SOLVED OLBERS’ PARADOX BY CONTRADICTING ITS CORE ASSUMPTIONS

What most people are not aware of is that Thomas Digges and Isaac Newton already solved the paradox by justifying the dark night sky. They both realized that the effect of fading light is predicated on the simple concept of DISTANCE! Their only problem was that they had no physical mechanism to justify their solution.

The answer, said Digges, is that most of them are too far away to be seen. Although Digges included this solution only as a “throw away” line in his book, other proposers of the paradox came to the same conclusion even though Digges’ offered no accompanying physical explanation.

“Of which lights Celestial it is to be thought that we only behold such as are in the inferior parts of the same Orb, and as they are higher, so seem they of less and lesser quantity, even till our sight, being not able farther to reach or conceive, the greatest part rest, by reason of their wonderful distance, invisible unto us.” – Thomas Digges (Perfect Description of the Celestial Spheres)

Newton argued that stars are simply too far away for the majority of their light to reach us directly because light fades over distances. He also reasoned what the ancients already understood - that the Universe had to be “infinite” in space - meaning that space is unbounded.

Newton reasoned that the night sky is not as bright as the Sun because matter cannot be infinite. Instead, matter must be lumped into “great masses” of islands (we call galaxies) that are scattered over great distances. Because of the vast distances to these scattered galaxies, light fades as it propagates toward us.

“if the matter was evenly diffused through an infinite space, it would never convene into one mass but some of it convene into one mass and some into another so as to make an infinite number of great masses scattered at great distances from one to another throughout all the infinite space.” – Isaac Newton (Correspondence, 234)

Like Digges, Newton had no physical mechanism to account for the convergence of light rays and their fading (i.e. frequency shifting) over distance. But nonetheless, both he and Digges had the correct solution to the problem.

In fact, what Newton did in his analysis was to reason the existence of galaxies. That is a profound argument coming from that era. He killed Olbers’ assumption #2 (a homogeneous Universe with stars evenly distributed; i.e. no galaxies!) and assumption #3 (every possible line of sight in the sky ends on the surface of a star). What more is left of Olbers’ Paradox?

Olber’s assumptions are untenable; and so is his irrational conclusion! The existence of a finite amount of scattered galaxies instantly destroys Olbers’ Paradox. So just what is the argument from Mathematicians? What does Olbers’ Paradox have to do with a Big Bang or even with an eternal universe? Absolutely nothing!

Unlike the thoroughly debunked Doppler Theory of light, the EM Rope Hypothesis coupled with the Theory of Tired Light provides a physical mechanism which rationally explains why light can shift its frequency into our invisible range over very large distances.

THEORY OF TIRED LIGHT ACCOUNTS FOR FREQUENCY- SHIFT

Mathematicians have never been able to explain the Theory of Tired Light because they never had a rational Hypothesis for the mediator of light. To understand the phenomenon of light you need to understand that it is impossible for there to be any discrete particles, waves or particle-waves (wavicles) in the Universe, as explained previously. How can a laser physically affect that wall from a distance? Only an extended mediator from an atom comprising the laser to an atom comprising the wall can account for Mach’s Principle and rationally explain physical Action-At-a-Distance. The only rational conclusion is that all atoms in the Universe are necessarily interconnected via a mediating entity that is responsible for these seemingly “magical” Action-At-a-Distance phenomena we call gravity and light. These are physical phenomena; mediated by real objects; not magical incorporeal concepts.

Only a rope can pull a dog towards you (i.e. gravity) and only a rope can simulate the c = ƒ λ property of light - nothing else; and certainly not particles, waves or wavicles. A rational Hypothesis for the mediator of light is the proposal that all atoms are interconnected via a 2-stranded DNA-like rope entity. We call this entity: the EM rope! We also use the “light ray” terminology to refer to an individual EM rope in this article.

When an atom Quantum Jumps and torques the EM rope (just like you torque a clothesline), an EM (electro-magnetic) torsion-wave signal is sent down the EM ropes to all the atoms in another galaxy, and to all the atoms in the Universe. These EM torsion-waves physically affect the receiving atoms (by inducing motion); be it the atoms comprising our retinas or the atoms comprising a rock. This is the phenomenon we call LIGHT along with its rational justification for Action-At-a-Distance (AAAD)! From Bohr’s Quantum Jump Theory, atoms generate light signals between them when their electron shells pump back and forth, and thus continue to emit torque-waves consistent with the Mössbauer Effect (i.e. recoilless emission).

NOTE: The attentive reader should have picked up on the fact that this model explains the mystical ‘principle’ of Special Relativity where light has the same speed irrespective of the motion of the source. As two objects move, light signals sent to each other via their interconnecting mediums have independent propagation from the motion of the objects themselves. The Mathematicians of Relativity don’t have an answer for this phenomenon; only contradictory magic. How pathetic is that? I mean, this principle is the bread & butter of SR!