tmdarkmatter

Hi, thank you for even considering that it might even be possible to support what I am proposing. Maybe, I would need still a couple of years to further elaborate my ideas. So far, they are only speculations. But I wanted to show the world at least my speculations. Hi Ghideon, thank you for your interest. The answers are as follows: How does a solar system "contain" light? As light moves at the speed of light and we consider that the solar system has a radius of about 2-3 light years according to the distance of neighbor stars, we can say that the solar systems contains about 2-3 light years (average maybe 3 light years) of light coming from all light emitting objects surrounding us (not only the sun). Where is this light? The problem is that you can only see light one moment at once, so you actually only "see" the photons directly arriving at your eyes, but you cannot see the three years of light passing through our solar system. But even if you watch the sky for three years, you would only see the light coming directly towards the point where you are standing, and this would still be a highly negligible part of all the light travelling through our solar system. (Just imagine how much light would arrive at the earth comparing it to the amount of light passing by). How does the solar system "collect"/"store"/"hide" lots of light from distant stars? If we can see the stars that means that their light has already travelled through our solar system and that there is much more light on its way or much more light that has already passed by, unless the stars suddenly disappear. Why is not the light from sun also "contained" in massive amounts? The light of the sun is also contained in our solar system, but it is only a very tiny part of the total light contained in the solar system. If you stand at an average distance to our sun within the sphere of our solar system (lets say 2 light years), the sun would only be a tiny dot surrounded by billions of other tiny dots. Why is the night sky black instead of full of these "contained" photons? First of all, the atmosphere is hindering us from seeing most objects at the sky. Second, as I previously said, you can only see the light one moment at once. What novel physical mechanisms do you propose? I propose that we might be considering the mass of light negligible, when it can actually be the best candidate to explain the effect of "dark matter", because it is everywhere, it is transparent, it does not accumulate to form complex structures, it does not interact considerably with the surrounding mass (otherwise we would not see the light coming from distant galaxies) and it has a very low mass that is very difficult to measure (exactly what we are looking for). If the density of dark matter was for example similiar to air, the universe would be billions of times too heavy and would crush us. It is interesting to think that in order to "see" all the light arriving at our solar systems, we would have to fill our entire solar system with an almost infinite amount of all-surround sensors. If we install one sensor per meter, we would need millions of times more sensors than the cells contained in the entire biomass of our planet.

I think that we are again measuring what is happening around some blood cells while ignoring the soccer field surrounding us. But please, this is only my opinion.

Yes, but what would happen, if it would be possible to have for example two planets each one two light years away from the sun in an almost perfectly opposing position and repeating this experiment, of course again sending the light as close as possible passing by the sun. Obviously, in this case, the planets (or the sun) might move during these 4 years rendering the experiment impossible, but if the objects would be hypothetical "static" objects, by how much would these 200 microseconds increase? To 250 microseconds? To 400 microseconds? Or to 5 hours? Venus and Earth are at most 14 light minutes away from each other, so how much would the effect be during 4 light years (of course summing a lot of "negligible values")? They should have used the Voyager spacecrafts to do this kind of experiments.

Yes, you are right. There are a lot of calculations to do. I am just checking how small the deviation actually is. At a distance of 100 km away from the sun, the angle is not even a 1/1000th degree. Anyway, I should use light at a "standard distance" to stars travelling through a "standard galaxy" to calculate a "standard angle" of deviation created by all stars in a row adding also the mass of the "light mass" contained within this galaxy. With this "standard angle" it should be possible to estimate the increase of mass created by this deviation effect within a galaxy. Anyway, the Shapiro delay is only the delay detected between Earth and Venus. The longer the distance, the higher would be this delay. Of course, again this effect gets lower and lower exponentially when we go away from the sun, so again I would end up adding "almost nothing" to "almost nothing"...

This Zen master would also say: "Stop searching for dark matter! It does not make sense to waste time on it. Just leave the gods alone, they just made a small mistake while designing the universe!" But maybe almost infinite times a very small number is a huge number. Well, let´s say that an alien from another planet told me that light mass is actually dark matter, but as he was not a scientist, he could not explain it to me. But this graph shows a little more, what I mean with gravitational deflection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shapiro_delay.gif Now imagine the amount of extra light mass surrounding a black hole. And this effect should be observed around every object in space, from little rocks to entire galaxies. Some create almost no effect at all, others create a very small effect and the black hole is the object with most effect. Somebody should create this same graphic but with millions of stars and each one with a much lower effect, so we can see what happens if light is slightly deviated by millions of stars. If light has to cross the milky way from the sides, it would have to pass by 20.000 stars that are 0-5 light years away to reach the other side. How probable would it be that this light remains on track after passing by so many stars? Each time light is being deviated or reflected that means an increase in total light mass. But the worst thing is that the mass of the light mass itself can be responsible for deviating light mass! So we have an invisible elephant attracting smaller elephants that attract even smaller elephants and so on.

Yes, you are right. I am sorry, I was very tired yesterday. I have a lot of work to do this week and I am just too busy. I am sorry, but in most cases I can just tell you the ideas. It is often not possible to get concrete numbers yet, so there is not a real hypothesis yet, only speculations. The idea of light mass replacing dark matter is still only a supposition. The help of many scientists would be needed to confirm/reject anything. I know that I should now provide new calculations like I did at the beginning by calculating the aproximate light mass in a sphere of 25 million light years. I will do that when I have more time. For example, it would be interesting to calculate how much light (a percentage) should be reflected by a galaxy taking into account the "area" of the sky each object (billions of star systems) would occupy at a certain distance. Another calculation would be to calculate how much light would be deviated by a standard star und by how much it would be deviated (degrees). This effect should then be multiplied by all the stars. But at the same time, a galaxy as a whole should also deviate light. All these calculations should be highly complicated. No, I am sorry, this time I was not talking about redshift. Instead, I am talking about anomalies that would increase the light mass surrounding us. But what happens if in the next 1000 years we will only be able to chose between hand-waving and "dark matter"? Ok, lets flight to a black hole first and then we continue with this discussion. As you can see, I would need a lot of help. But at the same time you are right, before publishing my ideas, I should have kept calculating for years to provide at least some more data. But maybe you can help me. At the end, the only thing I am trying to do is to find new answers to the question "what is dark matter?" And before I die, I wanted to give you or somebody else my ideas and draw the attention to the situation "that somebody left the light on in a living room full of invisible elephants". If you have light from our sun travelling towards an asteroid field and the light comes back, you will have the same light travelling through the same space in between twice, so the same light would provide twice as much mass as it should when only travelling into one direction. The same would happen if a very heavy object is able to make light spin around it and releasing it into the same direction where the light originally came from (like the sun is doing with comets).

Yes, it is interesting to analyze this with nuclei. What I think in this regard is that we might think that we have already found all types of atoms and that we have already completed the periodic system. The question is, what type of atoms do we have close to the black hole? If the mass/gravity is extremely high and there is a lot of heat/pressure there and in the surrounding stars, isn´t it possible that there are many more elements we did not find yet or where not able to artifically create? Maybe the stars are able to perform much more reactions with much more complex atoms, so there are many more fusion steps we still do not know. So far, we know that most of the elements are produced in stars and that the more complex ones are produced at the end of the lifetime of a star. But also here we might be wrong. Maybe there are more complex reactions already taking place in the center of the stars. By the way, we also do not know exactly what is going on inside earth, so far, we only drilled some 12 km. There might be a black hole inside earth of the size of a tennis ball and we would not be aware of that. A supernova might not be a process to create a black hole, but a supernova might be an attempt of a dying star to get rid of its black hole! I think the beginning of the story is hydrogen atoms and the end of the story is the singularity. Also, nature has shown us that it is much more efficient than we are with our machines, so I think that nature will also complete this story very smoothly and slowly.

Hi, yes, all stars generate a lot of light. What I am saying is that if we look at the sky while standing on earth, obviously most light comes from the sun. But we are only 7 light minutes away from the sun. The "average distance" from our sun within our solar system (the actual border should be somewhere between the sun and the closest stars) should be about 2-3 light years away. So, if you sit in a spacecraft at that distance from the sun and look at the sky, the sun would only be a little dot surrounded by millions of other little dots you would also see and which would have a similar brightness than the sun. Therefore, I am supposing that most light contained within our own solar system does not come from the sun itself, but from all these other stars and galaxies. As a result, I wanted to highlight that light itself can be a candidate too. But, as you can see above, my ideas are still having a lot of issues and so far, unfortunately, we still have to consider that "nothing" is the best option for "dark matter", unless we discover that the light has actually other characteristics we do not know so far or if we really can change several of the so far quite well established theories. For example, light must definitely have a mass (there must be no doubt!) and there must definitely be enough light (80% of the total mass). I calculated that there might be enough mass in a sphere of 25 million light years around us, but this might still not be enough. Maybe in the future we make new discoveries that change it all. Unfortunately, we will have to do very difficult things like travelling outside of our solar system with a telescope, travelling close to a black hole, travelling to the border of our galaxy and maybe waiting some millions of years in order to confirm that galaxies are really moving away and at a certain speed etc. I prefer to be be modest instead of trying to impose ideas that can be totally wrong. Of course, other (even well established) theories can be wrong too, but I am not in a position to throw stones at others. Only nature decides if I am right or wrong (but there is only one right and there can be an almost infinite amount of wrongs!) and thousands of scientists are in charge of reading what nature (or if you prefer the creator) is telling us. Yes, but there are a lot of things to consider: - I don´t think that the sun will always emit the same amount of light. Instead, it will increase from time to time. - Maybe the universe and/or the sun is much older or will get much older than we currently think. Just try to imagine how our milky way was formed in only 70 spins! If earth needed 500 millions years (spins) only to cool down, it does not seem to be realistic that its shape was created in only 70 years (spins). And the structure of the milky way is far more complicated. (it is always funny to see the big bang and suddenly the galaxies appear in a perfect shape without any development) - Not all light in the universe is generated by stars (just have a look at the Andromeda galaxy and tell me where most light comes from). Even Jupiter emits more light than it absorbs. - What about all the light bumping against other objects (a clear example is our moon). If light is reflected, its mass counts twice! - What about all the light that is getting deviated like with the Einstein rings? Is it possible that there is much more light in space being slightly deviated and we just do not detect that? Imagine light travelling from one group of galaxies to another group of galaxies and coming back because it was deviated. This light counts twice Obviously, this would also suggest that there are several galaxies we might be watching twice! (there are actually galaxies where this was already confirmed) - What about the real mass of the (heavy) stars, black holes and galaxies? How much of their mass is really intrinsic mass and not holded back light mass? - What about the relativity of time? What effect would a different passage of time have on light? - What about the relativity of space? - Etc. etc. etc.

By the way, I really like the guidelines of this place, especially the section 1 sentence.

Hi again, I am sorry, but it was already late yesterday, so I could not tell you what I wanted to tell you. You are always talking about one lamp that is shining and losing all the light at once and straightforward. But please have a look at the Andromeda galaxy and tell me what you see. You might say, ok, there are billions of stars, each one has a certain size and a certain gravitation field. And that´s not all, each of them is surrounded by many more planets, moons, asteroids, comets, even small rocks and dust. Now I want to ask you, when you look at the center of our milky way, can you perfectly see it? No. Why are we so sure that we have asteroids around us? Because the light of our sun hits them and is being reglected, otherwise they would all be invisible. The same happens with planets and moons. All these different objects are not only able to reflect light, they also have their own gravity and can deviate light at least very little. All this might be negligible when observing each object isolated, but on a large scale like galaxies, this effect might actually be responsible for retaining some light for a little longer than expected. So, if you would be able to turn the light of our galaxy on and observe it at distance with several cameras at different angles, you might see that the first light might arrive "almost" straightforward at the speed of light, then there would maybe be a second wave of all the light that had to pass by just smaller objects, than the light that had to pass by or was reflected by at least 1 star and got deviated, then light that had to pass or was reflected by at least 2 stars and got deviated twice, then 3 stars, 4 stars, 5, 6, 7,....9999 stars (maybe light that comes from the center) and then there is light that never made it out of the galaxy because it was captured by the black hole. Now, you might say that this effect should be negligible and that this light would never be enough for the elephants needed. The problem is that all the light coming from all the galaxies surrounding us also has to enter our milky way, pass by all these stars, get lost somewhere in the labyrinth of all the objects contained in our milky way until it finally comes out on the other side, gets deviated as well, or gets lost in one of the black holes. If the light is so perfect and can get through galaxies so quickly (near perfectly), why can we neither see our milky way nor the Andromeda galaxy well as we should (in the Andromeda galaxy they say that the center should be much brighter)? This is a proof that there is something else going on and that the effect is not negligible. If it was negligible, we would see an almost perfect galaxy. And this is not the only anomaly, but let me prepare my messages with time, because otherwise I would not be using a smart, logical wording, but would rather offend you with text of bad quality or without logical reasoning. Yes, we should definitely check this situation. But if confirmed, it would definitely cancel the big bang idea. But as time goes by, our universe also changes. So, your elephants are not just elephants, they are made of billions of little dots surrounded by all types of dust and material and it seems as if the light that was left on invades these elephants and needs some extra time to come out again. But please, this is only the proposal of a solution.

Well, what I suppose with the lamp is the following: The lamp shines for billions of years, until it goes out or explodes. Then after a couple of millions of years, the remains of the first lamp combine with the remains of another destroyed lamp and create another (different) lamp that shines for another billions of years, until this second one goes out or explodes as well and combines with other remains until a 3rd, 4th, 5th......9999th lamp generates, creating more and more light. If we would be able see the universe from outside, it would start containing a lot of lamps at the beginning and almost no light and end with only one lamp (or rather a huge black hole) in the middle surrounded by a huge amount of light.

It is like the photons abandon one universe with more concentrated matter (baryonic + energy/light) and arrive at another universe with a less concentrated matter (baryonic + energy/light) Hi. It is just a method to explain that light has to deal with gravity on its way to us. We are discussing the Pound-Rebka experiment. I am sorry, if I do not have the right words.

Wait, I have a very crazy idea lol let me see if you like it: If we take a galaxy that is very far away (13 billion light years), it means that the light traveled during 13 billion years. Well, as we are supposing, during that time all these stars lose at least part of their mass as light/energy, so actually galaxies should become lighter and lighter. So when this light finally arrives at our earth, all galaxies (including ours) are a little lighter than at the beginning, so the light now gains less frequency when arriving at the mass of our galaxy. At the end the light is more red shifted and at the same time the energy of the photons is being conserved. Lol, that would be funny.

Yes, there must be something we are not taking into account yet. It is like the light is climbing out more and more the further the source is away. It is like the light is climbing in total, away from a mass that is available in all directions. Anyway, the Pound-Rebka experiment is just an experiment in a tower of 25 meters. We would need to repeat this experiment on a much larger scale. It does not matter if the shift is tiny, don´t forget how vast space and all these galaxies are. Any little shift sums up.

No, I did not mean 1 or 2 million light years away, I mean it is not the same if the same gravitational force is being exerted on light while it is travelling for one or two million years. It is both important, how strong the force is and for how long it is beeing exerted on the light. I think we are again dealing with the problem of the size of the universe. Maybe the gravitation is very low when light passes by a galaxy, but it also needs to travel for maybe 1 million years to finally pass by. And don´t forget that when light is travelling in our direction, it is also being holded back by the galaxy it is abandoning. You might say, that it would also be accelerated by the next galaxy and then again being retarded and so on for many times, but in total, I suppose that light should rather lose some of its frequency (redshift) while travelling and the further the source is, the more frequency it should lose. Also dont forget that it is pulled to the sides as well, not only falling into wells and climbing out.

Lol, ok, so the effect is really impossible to see to the unaided eye. Einstein was of course also checking this. Maybe earth has more mass and the effect would be a little more but still negligible. I wonder if there are images of the sun showing up from behind Jupiter or Saturn. They say that it was also very hard to confirm that the sun is deviating the light coming from the stars behind. They had to find a perfect solar eclipse and take some very difficult pictures. Earth is not round either lol

I am sorry, but I am seeing earth not very round here either at the beginning: Maybe it is just my perception But maybe we found the atmosphere as a big elephant and final solution and are ignoring the fact that earth and moon etc. should also manipulate light at least slightly. The question is what is "near a mass". If you check the Einstein rings found so far, it is light very far away from a galaxy that becomes manipulated. The effect of Einstein rings can be on a small scale like stars or on a big scale like galaxies. "No effect" should not be possible because gravity is infinite. I think "negligible" is the correct term.

Yes, this effect is currently being completely ignored. I think it is funny to think that the only places where mass is affecting the trajectory of light or manipulating light are Einstein rings. At all other places in the universe, light should not be affected by gravity? I think that is a big mistake we are currently making. Just look at our sun just minutes before sunset and you will see that the sun is no longer round (similar to the effect of an Einstein ring). That´s because we are not seeing the sun directly, but only its light and this light is being manipulated by earth´s mass. The same happens during a solar eclipse. The mass of the sun deviates the light of stars behind it and the mass of the moon deviates the light coming from the stellar corona. So if we reflect about this, it seems that all objects in space have their own Einstein rings. So all objects seem to be manipulating not only the trajectory of light, but also its frequency. With time of exposure I mean that if the light travels for longer periods, it is more probable that it passes by objects with mass, so the light coming from far away should be more manipulated then the light coming from closer objects. Also, it is not the same if for example a galaxy uses its attractive force on light for 1 million years than for 2. The longer the effect, the stronger the redshift. I think there are also two possible explanations of why we cannot "see" galaxies that are further away than 13,5 billion light years: - the redshift is so extense, that the light arriving at our telescope is no longer visible - the trajectory of the light coming from these galaxies is so deviated, that it starts to travel in enormous circles around the source galaxy instead of travelling straight forward. Maybe it is no longer possible for the light to stay on its trajectory and actually reach us due to the high amount of mass in between. I am sorry if I irritated you somehow. Of course I have at least gathered this basic information and I am not an expert in this topic. Of course the distribution of galaxies is very complex with really big (surprising) structures. I am just "proposing" the idea of gravity instead of speed of galaxies as cause for redshifts. We all have to further study the structure of the universe in order to better understand it, that´s what life is all about, to keep learning every day until the last. Also, if I say that gravity makes more sense than the speed of galaxies as cause of redshift, it is only my opinion. All theories and ideas will always have supporters and opposers, even the idea that earth is flat or that we never went to the moon still have some supporters. Obviously, my ideas might have almost no supporters and almost only opposers, but that´s ok to me. If I do not know something, I am asking you or somebody who knows to help me. That is what we should all do to improve our civilization, we need collaboration, not enemies. And nobody can know everything.

This correlation would also be clear if it would be between observed redshifts and exposure to gravity multiplied by time of exposure. The farther away a galaxy is, the higher should the exposure to gravity be in total. But as I do not like the idea of galaxies travelling faster then the speed of light, nor the idea of a far too young universe, I would definitely prefer the gravity option. If we consider that the milky way only spinned 70 times so far since the big bang, I just cannot imagine that the shape of the milky way would be so perfectly aligned in only 70 spins. Just compare this with the amount of spins earth needed around the sun and earth is only one simple sphere, not a complex structure like a galaxy with arms and a perfect center. If we think that redshifts correlate with objects moving away and redshifts increase gradually at increasing distances, this automatically fulfills the idea of objects separating from each other at the same time. There are no two different ways to measure this. But this same correlation would also be present if we use gravity as a cause of redshifting. In this case, each object farther away would just have been exposed to more gravity than the closer objects what definitely makes sense considering the longer exposure to gravity. The only way to confirm if the galaxies are moving away from us and the universe is expanding would be by measuring changes of the size of galaxies in time. But how many million years would we have to wait until a galaxy 13 billion light years away (a dot) would get small enough for us to confirm that it is actually moving away, even if almost at the speed of light? But if it is not moving away in millions of years, this would definitely refute the idea of a big bang and an expanding universe. In this regard, it is highly suspicious that the only big galaxy (easy to study) next to us (andromeda) is moving our way and is not moving away. And it is also suspicious that such galaxy movements are also difficult to confirm with all other close galaxies, because obviously their speed away from us should be much lower than the speed of the distant ones.

In that case, why can we not see galaxies more than 13,5 billion light years away? Are there no more galaxies around us? I know that you will now say that these galaxies have travelled away from us in the meanwhile, but what makes you so sure that the universe is actually expanding (faster than the speed of light/"nonsense" balloon theory)? I know that you will now talk about the Hubble constant and the red shifting. But if you check the Pound-Rebka experiment, red shifting can also come from the effect of gravity on light, so I am actually not sure if galaxies are more red shifted as further away they are because they are moving away or because the light coming from them is being manipulated more by the mass of all the galaxies in between and even our own milky way. I think, there is a contradiction, but science currently accepts both theories to be true. Science should be chosing one of them and the Pount-Rebka experiment seems to be a much better match to our observations of space. But this is only my opinion and I am sure that I am now going to get heavily criticized. But what would science be if it is not possible to criticize? Anyway, I think that the universe should be much bigger than we currently think, it is just that we cannot see what is further away because of extreme red shifting.

No, I am not saying that more photons are being created. Instead I suppose that the light and mass of our sun or the light and mass of our galaxy might interfere with how we see the other stars or galaxies and their light intensity. For example, if you watch the andromeda galaxy, it has an apparent magnitude of 3,44 and the apparent magnitude of sirius is -1,33. It seems as if Andromeda is only shining as strong as 21 billion suns, but astronomers think that andromeda should contain a billion stars. I know that red dwarfs shine with a much lower intensity, but it seems as if light is being manipulated by light or mass when entering our milky way, so that less light arrives at earth for us to see. Maybe stars shine much stronger than we think. With mass manipulating light I am talking about the famous Pound-Rebka experiment. Of course, I would be totally disappointed if you would not be convinced of this at the beginning and maybe during the next decades! Finding the solution for dark matter will definitely not be easy. But there are still a lot of anomalies (maybe millions of them) in space and each of these anomalies might get the "light mass" closer and closer to become significant and to replace "dark matter". The light mass might at the end generate elephants. I will mention some of these anomalies next week. Don´t worry, the journey is just beginning, this is only the introduction. The light mass is just the main ingredient. At least my very simple calculations are showing 11 times the mass of the milky way in a sphere with a radius of 25 million light years surrounding us. With time, we might be able to make this sphere smaller and smaller until it fits.

Yes, I know what you mean, but this would be the universe if we take into account that the universe kept expanding while the light of the furthest galaxies was travelling to us, but I prefer to only consider "visible universe" the part of the universe we can actually "see" so far.

Yes, you are right. It would be falsified if light has no mass at all of any kind or if the "mass of light" coming from all light sources in our universe would be insufficient in order to replace at least a noticeable part of the so-called "dark matter".

Ha ha, that was really funny! Somebody left the lights on! I will always remember that joke. I think this crazy idea has to do with how crazy our universe is, it is so vast that we cannot imagine it. Just the idea of light travelling for billions of years is very difficult to actually imagine. I know, they show us these videos where we quickly abandon our galaxy and thats it, but that is not the case, the light just keeps going and going and going, almost eternally. Maybe we should create a movie instead showing the light passing by earth after 8 minutes, passing by pluto after 5-6 hours, but then to the next star it is 4 years. Maybe after watching this movie for days or weeks, people would realize how the universe works and why we do not understand it. And the problem is that the sphere becomes bigger and bigger and the light has to fill all this three-dimensional space. But the worst thing is, that we might need a big telescope at the edge of our solar system and at the edge of our milky way to better investigate this. Because it is possible, that after leaving our solar system or the milky way, we would suddenly see a lot more light around us, so we might have to increase our estimates of light produced by stars. So, while most scientists are checking the living room for these invisible elephants with their magnifying glasses, I am just turning the light on and off lol I think I used the wrong wording here. It should say: I am proposing a simpler solution, nothing else.

Ín the 19th century, scientists were still not aware that there were more galaxies than just our milky way and that space would be at least 13,5 billion LYs big into all directions. That is a lot of space for a lot of light. Also, if for example a soccer field is our solar system, the sun would only be of the size of 2 blood cells and next to this soccer field there would be another soccer field containing alpha centauri, some more blood cells. Now check how many blood cells 1 ml of blood contains, if you put these blood cells on the ground in this soccer field, you would not notice them at all. The interstellar space is really enormous and in at least three dimensions, just try to fill this space with some light and you will understand why I am worried about scientists not finding dark matter after so many decades. I think the main question is if light has mass or not. If it does not, that´s it. But what happens if it does? Many scientists are still argueing about this possibility. Some are strictly against it and other are in favor. I think that in a century, scientists will say: of course light has a mass, didn´t you know that? And maybe in two centuries, scientists will again say: no, light definitely has no mass! No problem, we can expand the universe, but in that case, there would be more galaxies too. No, it does not come equally. If you are close to a star, most light comes from that star. If you are within or close to a galaxy, most light comes from that galaxy. The same happens to galaxy groups and clusters and finally, whether you are close to the center of the universe (if there is a center) or far away. But I must say that you are the first person telling me that light comes equally in every direction. Other scientists believe the complete opposite, they say that once you leave the galaxy, suddenly there is no more light! It is very interesting that you think exactly the opposite. I am happy to see smart people on both sides.