Over the years I have read many books and papers, and stumbled upon various “puzzles” that led to questions and made me research each of them. Each one might seem like some random puzzle, but when looking at them as a whole, those puzzle pieces seem to fit into a coherent picture, and this page summarizes this “picture” that emerges. If you just read this without looking at the other pages and references, and if you have not thought about the puzzle pieces yet, you will surely think this is nuts (note that what is described below is mathematically equivalent to the main stream model).

But, I dare you to take some time to think about it and read the references in the links section (and keep an open mind for just a moment), and you will see that this could actually makes sense (I’d be happy to debate any of this!). Please keep in mind that the details are in the links and references if you want to dig deeper on any of these topics, this is just the “summary”.

The universe is an elastic solid

I know this sounds crazy, so just bear with me for a moment (is it really crazier than inflation and dark energy and the “magic” of QM if you think about it?). Of course this is not a solid made of any known material like a jello, but think of it more as “fabric of space” or “space” as a grid like coordinate system.

The main line of evidence is from Hagen Kleinert: he proved that the Minkowski space-time is equivalent to an Eucledian universe with variable density, with a single coordinate transformation. So instead of space time, the universe can be viewed as a solid “crystal” that has varying density (the 4th dimension). This means that all mathematical formulas are the same, the main thing that changes is the “interpretation” of those formulas. The GR metric tensor is the same, except that space has varying density (which seems much easier to visualize than space time).

You might say, who cares if our universe is “space time” or “space density” (and hence an elastic solid), if the math is the same? Conceptually these two interpretations are very different, and once you start to think about it, there may be experiments that could be designed that do indeed show a difference (see below in the experiments section). Personally I would like to understand how the universe works, and not just in terms of formulas, but I would like to really understand it, so that is enough motivation for me. Also, in science we should always question the status quo and look at different models, how else are we going to advance?

In addition, the two models have very different explanations for things like, why the speed of light is constant or why there is a time dilation/space contraction or how gravity really works, as you will see below. In one model the explanation makes intuitive sense (to me at least), in the other one it does not. Given two equal models, then in my opinion, we should consider the one that has simpler explanations (or at least, we should not take the more complicated simply “because”).

If the universe is an elastic solid, then what is a photon?

Photons are pure waves

You will say, but photons can be both, particles or waves. Yes, they do of course have properties of particles in some cases (like in the photoelectric effect), and they are often quantized (depending on how they are emitted), but they are still just waves (in the elastic solid model). In a real physical elastic solid, such waves are called ” phonons ” or “particles of sound”. They are described the same way mathematically as photons. They are bosons, just like photons (see this page for details), and they have in fact particle like properties. That is why they are called “quasi” particles.

Matter is composed of waves

In the elastic solid model, the Schrödinger wave equation describes not probability density functions, but actual, real waves in the elastic solid. (Of course the equations can be used to compute probabilities just like before) Matter ist most likely composed of soliton waves (the work of Robert Close has a lot of details on this topic!).

Yes of course matter has particle like properties, just like photons have particle like properties. The “particle” nature of matter is essentially a measurement effect, just like phonons look like particles of sound but are in fact waves (they are after all called “quasi particles”). These waves behave like particles because usually when we measure them, it requires a certain amount of energy or a certain frequency for something to happen (such as photons that affect electron energy levels, which are quantized. For instance, electrons can only be moved to a different energy level if the energy fits exactly the difference needed).

Consider the notion of anti-matter. Why would matter and anti-matter annihilate each other, if matter were particles of some sort? What is the logical explanation? However if matter are indeed true waves, then this is obvious. If you have ever worn noise cancelling headphones, then you know what I mean. A wave and its opposite wave cancel each other out. The energy of course does not disappear! In the case of noise cancelling head phones, my guess is that the energy would show itself as heat (warming up of the head phones). In the case of matter antimatter annihilation, the energy turns into gamma rays. (In case you are now thinking, wait a minute, there is a parity violation, please read this paper by R. Close).

There is an absolute frame of reference

I hear the screaming already, but please hang on a second. The elastic solid is of course in a way an absolute frame of reference (even if we can never really see it). Of course you will say that Einstein proved otherwise, and also you will think immediately about the Michelson-Morley experiment, which yielded a “null result”, which supposedly proved that there cannot be any kind of medium. First of all, do you know what assumptions were made in this experiment? In fact, in this experiment, the assumptions were that matter (like earth and the interferometer), would move through the medium not as wave, but as a “solid” (as you would push a rock through a pudding). What the experiment showed is that this is not the case, that there is no such medium through which we move as a “solid“.

In the elastic universe model, matter does not “move through the solid” like pushing a rock through a pudding. Remember the sound particles? The phonons? How do they move “through” the crystal? They look like particles, but they are just vibarations in that crystal, they are waves, and these waves propagate through the crystal. This is something entirely different then taking a small rock and pushing it through it (which would be basically impossible if the crystal was really solid). There is no friction or drag when a wave propagates through an (ideal elastic) medium.

In the elastic universe model, all matter is composed of waves. This means, when the Michelson-Morley interferometer moves through space, it also contracts in length, because it is made of waves. This means, one would expect a null result. The null result is expected with an elastic universe model.

Yes, Einstein said that we don’t need an absolute reference frame, and he was right. We don’t need it. It does not appear in any calculations. But he never proved that it does not exist (please point me to any paper that does!). Not needing something is not a proof of non-existence.

The maximum speed is c

Yes, in this model the speed of light is constant as well. But did you ever wonder why this is some kind of universal speed limit, that also affects matter? This is one of the little things that don’t really make intuitive sense (to me at least) if we consider the space time model.

In the elastic universe model, this is much more obvious. Any wave in any medium has a certain wave speed. Consider sound in air or the speed of an earthquake wave or the speed of a water wave.

If we consider that matter and photons are all just waves, then of course they both must have the same “speed limit” of c, and not just photons. It is really obvious.

In the elastic solid model, the speed of light is constant in an absolute sense, so there is an absolute frame of reference. And I can already here the “wait a minute!” and I can see hands being thrown in the air. Before you abandon this thought, let’s think it through. Because time dilation and length contraction (see special relativity) is something that happens in any wave system, even if there is an absolute frame of reference, all observers always measure “c” as being the same value, no matter how fast they move. So just because there is an absolute frame of reference does not mean that this changes anything mathematically. In fact, we don’t “need” the absolute frame of reference in any computation at all. But that does not mean that it does not exist. Some of you might say that well, if we don’t need it, it does not exist. When computing the doppler effect of sound (in air), do we need the air? No we don’t. The formulas do not consider the “air” at all. Yet it still exists.

Even Einstein said later in his life (see here ) said that we need an “ether” (some kind of medium), and he would probably not say it if it would contradict his own theories. This “ether” is an absolute frame of reference. It doesn’t hurt anyone, so there is no reason to panic. All the formulas still work the same way as before.

Gravity is refraction

One of the biggest puzzles today is still how gravity actually works. Interestingly, in mechanical physics, scientists use the GR tensor in optics (please check out the links section for more material). There, the metric tensor can be used to compute how light passes through transparent media, where light is bent via refraction. This is an optical analogue of general relativity (which even includes optical black holes!).

In the “elastic solid” world, gravity is basically the result of refraction. Yes, just like light is bent in your glasses, any transparent medium with a gradient in density will bend light (see this page).  But how would matter be affected in this world? Matter are waves as well, and are affected by refraction just like any other wave. 

There is no “magic” in QM

Delayed Choice Experiments and Photoelectric Effect

Of course, you will now point out the “delayed choice” experiment, which must prove that something magical happens. Does it? Checkout this video  (you can skip the first few minutes, the experimental setup starts around 5 minutes, and the explanation about what is wrong with the “magical” explanation around 8:30 minutes, and a second such experiment is explained at around 13 minutes). The issue is the assumption that photons are particles. If we abandon this assumption, then the mystery vanishes. The only reason photons appear to be particles is because of the way they are measured. How are photons measured? Usually it is either some voltage or current, using the photoelectric effect. And the photoelectric effect depends on the energy levels of the electrons, which are quantized. For a more detailed discussion this, see this  page or this,to see that the photoelectric effect is perfectly explainable with a classical wave and does not require particles at all.

Non-expanding Universe

Before you get upset, note that I have been a firm “believer” of the Big Bang theory for ages, and I was sad when I started to notice more and more issues with the model, such as stars and galaxies that seem to be too old, huge galaxy clusters that are too big, the weird inflation, the need for dark and even negative energy, issues with quasars, space expanding faster than the speed of light etc. You might think I am jumping to conclusions here when I claim that the elastic model means no big bang. Well, let’s think about this for a minute, and see if you agree or not. There are several thoughts that need to be connected here, I hope you will bear with me.

In the elastic universe model, all matter (including stars) are waves in this “grid” like structure. So, if space does expand, there are two options:

a) The solid expands, but no more “space” is created.

In this case, the grid distance simply increases, and thus the waves in it would also simply increase, which would mean, all matter, such a stars and galaxies would also get larger over time. At the end, everything would proportionally be the same and we would not even notice such an expansion!

b) New solid is “added” somehow

If more solid is added (where?), and the grid size does not change, then stars would not get larger. But then, why would the wave length of photons get larger and therefore redder? Sure, the distance would increase, but nothing would be “stretched”.

Hence either space is expanding but we don’t notice it, or else it would expand but there would be no red shift, or else, space does not expand.

Note that this also applies even if the universe is not an elastic solid. Based on the Big Bang model, space expands and hence “stretches” photons, and they become red shifted. But if space expansion can actually stretch photons, why would it not also stretch other things, like electrons? And how can space stretch photons? It would mean that either photons are indeed a wave of this “space” (so, back to the elastic solid…), or there must be some other mechanism by which the photon is “attached” to space. Either way you look at it, at least I cannot find this consistent.

Red Shift

The main “evidence” for the big bang model is the red shift, so we should look at that more closely. The assumption is that red shift is space expansion, period. It is an assumption, as we have not actually done any experiments to prove it. (If there is, please let me know!). Red shift can also be caused by the doppler effect, by gravity, and as you can see here (and in the links section), but it is assumed that it must be space expansion, because otherwise the big bang model would not work. There are other explanations, in particular this one from material science (so no, these are not just some crooks who want to disprove the big bang), which seems quite convincing to me:

 “Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium”.

In essence it says that, as light moves through any (non -dispersive, transparent) medium, some of the energy of the photon is passed onto the medium (an optoelasic effect), which results in a mass density wave in the medium itself.  So the photon loses some of its energy as it travels through a medium. A medium could be the elastic solid, but it can also be interstellar gas, for instance. (Space is not completely empty). When a photon loses energy, it gets red shifted.

So maybe, just maybe, the red shift we observe has nothing to do with the supposed “space expansion”.

Another line of “evidence” is plasma red shift (Chen et al and Lyndon Ashmore). It has been shown in the lab that photons that travel through plasma can cause a red shift. Since there is plenty of plasma in space, it means that it is at least very likely that some amount of red shift is caused by plasma. Even if there were still space expansion, we would have to consider that the red shift we see is composed of multiple types of red shifts and does not have a single cause.

If I had to make a guess (based on all evidence I have read), I would think we live in a non-expanding universe, where matter (which are waves…) and light are continuously (over the eons) converted into each other. You will of course point out that a static universe would not be stable and would collapse because of GR (the cosmological constant). First of all, who is to say that gravity operates to infinity? There is no reason to believe that. Maybe gravity gets weaker over billions of light years – we cannot simply assume it works to infinity. Also, if the universe is infinitely large (why not?), then there is no “center” and there is no way it would collapse.

Time dilation

Sure you will now say, but what about the time dilation that we observe in Type 1a supernovas? First of all, if there is such a time dilation, we should also see it in gamma ray bursts, but we don’t(!) (Neither is there any time dilation for quasars) . Second, it seems that there is a selection bias going on when picking which supernovas (here) to use for this type of analysis. So to me this “time dilation” is not very convincing. Most other observations (like microwave background) have a reasonable explanation in both models (big bang or static), so those are not helpful in deciding which makes more sense.

Just a thought: remember the epicycles , where earth was supposed to be the center of the universe? This used to be a very good model to approximate movements of stars and planets to a certain point. But then it got more and more complicated and absurd, and it had to be abandonned by something much simpler, Kelpers law. Similarly, the big bang model started out so well and was so convincing, but now more and more stuff gets added (like inflation, dark energy, dark matter etc), requiring all kinds of weird coincidences (evolution effect of galaxies that cancel out time dilation for instance), that maybe we should really at least have the courage to seriously look into other models.

Paradoxes

What are some of the paradoxes in the mainstream space-time model, and what does it look like in the space-density model?

Twin Paradox

Consider the paradox of the twins, which only exists if there is no absolute reference frame: the twins Bob and Max have the same age. We put Bob into a rocket and he flies away at 50% the speed of light. We also put Max into a rocket but leave him where is now (let’s say we drug them so they don’t know if both or one of them is actually moving. After the acceleration is complete, we wake them up). Which one ages faster? From Bob’s point of view, he is at rest and the other moves away, so he thinks he should be aging faster. From Max’s point of view, Bob is moving, and so he should be aging faster. I hope you agree that there should not be a paradox, and any paradox is an indication of flaws in a model.

In the elastic model, both Bob and Max have an absolute speed. If we knew (of course the question is, how do we know? Let’s assume we can for a moment) how fast we are moving relative to the absolute reference frame (say, relative to the background radiation, which we might be able to measure), we can figure out who is actually moving faster than the other. The one that is moving faster ages less. (How do explain this if there is no absolute frame of reference…? It is not possible that both age faster than the other).

Particle-Wave Duality and Wave Function Collapse

One of the great mysteries in QM is the wave function collapse. Suddenly the probability wave disappears and it turns into a clear answer, the wave turns into a particle. What is the explanation in the elastic solid model? The answer is that any measurement is an interaction of a wave (say a photon) with an other wave (say a soliton wave). Such an interaction merely means that the original wave shape is changed into another wave shape that ultimately turns into some usually digital signal, which we then interpret as seeing a “particle”. How do we for instance measure a photon? Often this is related to the photoelectric effect, where photons dislocate electrons. This requires a certain amount of energy that must match precisely. So the electron is only dislocated, if the photon matches whatever energy difference is needed to do that (which would depend on the material). Here is an example. For each device, there is some mechanism like this that ultimately triggers some even that we can then “see”.

If this is not clear, how about an analogy. Let’s say there is a storm and we measure the storm intensity by the number of trees that fall down. The wind blows, and at some point, a tree experiences enough force to fall down. The storm is not any kind of particle obviously, yet it can make tress to fall down, and we can turn it into an integer value by counting the number of trees that fall. This would be like saying, the storm has been converted into particles, which is of course not the case. The way we measured the storm makes it look like that, that’s it.

Ladder Paradox (and similar)

In the ladder paradox, there is a ladder that is the length of a barn. In one situation, the ladder moves close to c, and is thus shortened, and should therefore fit into the barn easily. In the other case, the ladder is at rest and the barn moves close to c, so the barn is shorter and the ladder cannot fit. You can find the details here. In the elastic solid model, whatever has the faster absolute speed is shorter, so there should be no situation ever where it is not clear (we might not know of course which is faster, but that does not matter).

Science Fiction Topics

What about notions like time travel and black holes, what would that mean in the space density model?

Time Travel

Unfortunately I would guess that time travel in this model is not possible. There is no reason at all that we could influence time in any way (since it is not space-time but space-density). So I would not expect any time traveller soon (but those movies are still cool of course :-)).

Black Holes

If the universe is an elastic solid, the notion of an actual point of infinite small size does not make any sense. At minimum, it would probably have the size of h (if this the grid size, and even that seems too small in my opinion). That does not mean that any math formulas are wrong, it only means that we should not take such formulas literally (in particular negative time values, infinities and singularities!). After all, the formulas are there to describe nature, and not the other way around.

Just consider the optical black holes I have mentioned. Is there an actual singularity? Of course not. It just means that light cannot escape because of the refractive index, and that is why it appears completely black. There is no magic in a black hole (and no other “universes”).

“Warp” Travel and Worm Holes

As a fan of Star Trek, I wish it would be possible to create a warp drive of some sort. I have not made up my mind about this one yet in the elastic solid universe. In theory, if we could change the shape of the elastic solid (the grid), or even create a hole in it to connect different places with each other (like a tunnel), then maybe we could cheat in a way and travel to distant places more quickly. I have no idea though how we could possibly do that. Do you have any suggestions?

Experiment Ideas

Speed of light for ultra short gamma rays

You might know that in nature, waves with shorter wave length actually have slightly different speeds than waves with longer wave lengths, and that for light, we don’t see any such a difference. Well, at what wave length would we actually see a difference in speed? We would see it at wave lengths close to the “grid size” (if there is such a thing). So we would need to know if the elastic solid of the universe has a finite grid size, and if it does, how long it is. My guess is that its order of magnitude is around h. This means we should probably expect a different speed of light around wave lengths of the size 10^-34 m. So, what kind of waves have we been able to observe? The shortest wave so far is around 10^-20 m (see here), that means we are still 14 orders of magnitude away. My bet is, if we ever get close to this magnitude, we will observer a small difference in speed, such as ultra short gamma rays of supernovas that arrive slightly later than other photons. So this is something we might eventually be able to measure experimentally, isn’t that exciting!

Mass Density Wave in Transparent Media

 “Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium”.

In essence it says that, as light moves through any (non -dispersive, transparent) medium, some of the energy of the photon is passed onto the medium (an optoelasic effect), which results in a mass density wave in the medium itself.  So the photon loses some of its energy as it travels through a medium. It looks like it might soon be possible to actually do an experiment in a lab to detect this mass density wave, which would prove that the cause of the red shift may not just be space expansion.

Summary Table

	Space-density Universe (RED pill)	Space-Time Universe (BLUE pill)
Tags	elastic solid, crystal universe, optical-mechanical analogue, space exists	Minkowski, space-time, absolute space does not exist
GR Metric Tensor	space-density (space with compression)	space-time
Cause of Gravity	refraction (density gradient, optical)	curvature of space-time
Photon	quantized wave, similar to phonon quasiparticles in crystal (vibrational mode), there are no photon “particles”	probability density wave function, no “real” wave, probability of finding photon
Double Slit Experiment	real waves interfering (like phonons)	parallel universes, no real wave, “consciousness” ,probabilistic…
Schrödinger Wave Equation	describes real waves, rotational waves in an elastic solid. There are no particles	probability of finding a particle, there are no real waves
What is space?	An elastic solid (not made of matter). Matter and light moves though space as waves move through a crystal	There is no absolute space
Special Relativity	Time dilation and length contraction are consequence of any wave system. Any wave has a maximum speed in any given medium.	There is no intuitive explanation. It follows from the constancy of the speed of light for each observer
Speed of light	c, constant in absolute space. Also c for each observer, due to time dilation	c is constant for each observer. There is no absolute space
Twin Paradox	No paradox. Whoever moved slower relative to absolute space ages faster.	If A is considered to be at rest, B ages more slowly, and vice versa. There is no clear answer as to who ages faster (if cleverly engineered –see post on that)
Uncertainty Principle	Natural consequence of any wave system	Due to wave property of matter and light (but only probabilistic)
Doppler Effect	Same as sound. Shift depends of speed of source and observer relative to an absolute space	Not same as sound as there is no medium. Strictly depends on relative velocity between observer and source. No physical explanation.

Links

(The main links page is here )

Hagen Kleinert and Marek Danielewski

• Hagen Kleinerts World Crystal:
  http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/papers/planckklcZN.pdf
  
• Defects and Diffusion in the Planck-Kleinert Crystal:
  http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/359/braz.pdf

• Foundations of the Quaternion Quantum Mechanics
  www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/12/1424
  
• Here is my version of this talk on youtube: https://youtu.be/UT_EFqmSisQ?t=1

Robert Close

Robert has quite a detailed model on an elastic solid, so I suggest to read the material in detail if you are interested in this topic and don’t mind to dig through quite a bit of math:

Robert Close:
The wave basis of special relativity: http://www.verumversa.com/Science/
http://www.verumversa.com/Science/ClassicalWaveTheoryOfMatter.pdf
https://www.classicalmatter.org/toc.htm

http://www.verumversa.com/Science/index.htm

There are also several videos where he gives a talk about the model, that is very easy to understand: (start at around 8:40 in the first video):
https://www.youtube.com/user/ClassicalMatter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk17Gj7D1nU&list=PLbMNlRl_eincs4aqM7qAnfPbXn2G6xyUr&index=42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT0XX4Ho_cg&list=PLbMNlRl_eincs4aqM7qAnfPbXn2G6xyUr&index=44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcclA82rnx4&list=PLbMNlRl_eincs4aqM7qAnfPbXn2G6xyUr&index=43

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Zx5NBahcA&list=PLbMNlRl_eincs4aqM7qAnfPbXn2G6xyUr&index=41

Other Models

There are many people with similar models, although not all of them have a lot of detail, and most models do have some elements that do not make sense, but still, they are based on the simple idea that the universe is some kind of lattice, an elastic solid, so I would like to encourage those people to connect with each other and to really dig deeper into this model to hopefully one day arrive at a complete model.

Ilja Schmelzer

Elastic Universe

Further Links

I have a little page where I try to visualize spin 1/2 with Unity:

Quaternion Quantum Mechanics

Quantum Physics “Magic”

• Video explaining the delayed choice without magic
• Photoelectric effect via classical waves:
  https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/lightslides.pdf

Matter waves

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
• Quantum Interference Experiments with Large Molecules:
  http://130.58.92.210/Students/phys%205_2010/zeilinger%20ajp%202003.pdf
• Double slit with single electrons: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/14/feynmans-double-slit-experiment-gets-a-makeover
• Wave-particle duality of C60 molecules: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0.html
• Diffraction fo C60 at a SiN grating: http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research/matterwave/c60/
• Atom Laser: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Popular_papers/Atom%20laser%20Enc.pdf
• Atom Laser: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Projects_1997/atomlaser_97/atomlaser_comm.html
• W. Ketterle: When Atoms Behave as Waves: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2001/ketterle-lecture.pdf
• Interference of two BEC: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Projects_1997/Interference/Interference_BEC.htm
• Properties of a Bose Einstein Condensate: http://www.uni-muenster.de/Physik.AP/Demokritov/en/Forschen/Forschungsschwerpunkte/mBECwatpoabec.html
• Bose Einstein Condensation: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/ph12c/ketterle-physicsworld.pdf
• Exact Description of Rotational waves in an Elastic Solid (by Robert Close): http://www.classicalmatter.org/RotationWaves.pdf
• Torsion Wave in Three Dimensions: Quantum Mechanics with a Twist (by Robert Close): http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/fopl/2002/00000015/00000001/00371047
• Classical Wave Theory of Matter (by Robert Close): http://www.verumversa.com/ClassicalWaveTheoryOfMatter.pdf
• Quantum Theorem Shakes Foundations (The wave function is a real physical object after all, say researchers):
  http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392
• On the Reality of the Quantum State: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1111.3328
• No Evidence for Particles: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.3930.pdf
• Recent Advances in Submolecular Resolution with Scanning Probe Microscopy: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n4/full/nchem.1008.html
• Michelson Morley revisited:
  http://cds.cern.ch/record/553293/files/0205065.pdf

Donald Chang

On the wave nature of matter: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0505/0505010.pdf

Why Energy and Mass Can Be Converted between Each Other? A New Perspective Based on a Matter Wave Model: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=64053

Study on the Physical Basis of Wave-Particle Duality: Modelling the Vacuum as a Continuous Mechanical Medium: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=58

Other Links:

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228730621_Intrinsic_Plasma_Redshifts_Now_Reproduced_In_The_Laboratory-a_Discussion_in_Terms_of_New_Tired_Light