The slowing down in physiological time is manifested through the redshift of distant starlight.

Frank Pio Russo - September 27, 2015.

I have recently shown that the universe is not dissipating away into nothingness as it expands outwards. Rather it is expanding simply because it is constantly growing bigger! Throughout my website I've often spoken about the principle of physiological time, which I coined way back in 1988 as shown in my guestbook:

Basically as things grow bigger physiological time slows down. This is because the physiological meter increases, as bigger and bigger distances are involved for life functions. The reason for this has been shown to be none other than 'the Force' gravity. The latter is not diluted as you move down into the infinitesimally decreasing micro world. Hence at our atomic level it is 10 to the 40 times stronger than what it is at our level, because the physiological meter is getting smaller and smaller: this is why things are all moving so much faster there! Now it is interesting that it takes 10 to the 40 atoms to measure out the width of our universe from one side to the other... and that if our universe is to be considered as a macro-atom in the next world up, the there sentient beings would see a similar speed of light to us at our level, through a physiological meter that's 10 to the 40 times bigger than ours!

Of course it's still the same gravity at work, but it will be greatly slowed down because of the much greater absolute lengths involved! And therefore to keep reality consistent, physiological time would slow down by the factor of 10 to the 40. It is obvious then that at much bigger levels, wavelengths of light would have to be much bigger for a 'true' relativity to exist: i.e. they become redshifted! 

Well perhaps eventually, we will be the manipulators of life at the bigger levels! (This could explain why the quality of life at our level is so progressive: the micro-engineers from our quantum world are learning as they're going along!). We have actually already embarked on such a course, by building compound telescopes and peering at the macrocosm out there in space.

In view of the foregoing, we should expect the wavelengths of light from very distant objects, to become more and more redshifted... this is absolutely necessary! However, we need not infer from this that our universe is accelerating away and dissipating into nothingness! I would imagine that the creative force is none other than gravity at the centre of stars and other creative entities... so I fail to see where this expansive acceleration would come from. But rather, I envisage that the redshift involved is caused by concentric motion, as a macro-atom is being built up! Yes the Earth is still - really - at near the centre of the universe!

Finally, I will add some earlier articles that actually show how this redshift is brought about.

Frank Pio Russo.

P.s. Recent data shows that supernovae 1A are not a 'candle' as standard as they thought... obviously the redshift is due to transverse motion and not only due to the distance away!

More on the purported expansion of the universe.

Frank Russo - February 08, 2013. (Revised Feb. 09, 2013).

Abstract : Exploring further the fact that the transverse motion of stars can cause the red-shift of starlight's wavelength... this can in turn give an exaggerated distance for the particular stars which would not match the luminosity of supernovas. The foregoing has led astronomers to erroneously assume that the universe is expanding with acceleration.

According to the experts our universe was decelerating in its early history due to the effects of gravity, and then much later as the gravity grasp weakened, it began to accelerate... not being an astronomer I had to digest some of the facts involved.

Apparently all the distant objects are measured according to the red-shift of their light's wavelength... and the standard candle that is used is a particular type of supernova... the problem is of course that these distant supernovas are very much dimmer than expected hence the purported accelerating expansion! However, I have shown in the past that transverse motion to the direction of the light of stars, gives red-shifted light (see ), hence this in itself simply implies that the stars are moving in a sort of not quite tangential motion to us, rather than accelerating away! This being because we would be receiving the light along the hypotenuse of the triangle which has the velocity on one side and the c-aberration value on the other: of course the light would be "inflated"!

As for closer stars where the actual distance is measured through parallax, one can get the impression that the universe was decelerating simply because one finds that the stars actually do the opposite... they don't dim as much! This is because we tend to overestimate the distance in light years because of using the experimental speed of light instead of the aberration one [1]: that is 299,792,458 m/sec instead of 304,475,873.2 m/sec.

In conclusion then, I am not convinced that the universe is expanding let alone accelerating! Although it is possible I guess, that our universe might be a macro-atom of sorts, and it is quite feasible that it could be expanding as a result of 'someone' or 'something' applying some heat from the next macro-world up!

Frank Russo.

Bibliography: (available on )

[1] Russo F.P.(1995) Analysis of Stellar Aberration yields the ‘real’ speed of Light. Speculations in Science and Technology,18, 200- 204.


Explaining how the miracle of the speed of light comes about!

Frank Pio Russo - January 23, 2013. (Revised January 24, 2013)

Abstract: Unraveling the mystery of the speed of light and explaining how it can appear to be going at the same speed regardless of any orbital speed. The key to this is that what we measure at the moment is distance rather than speed...  and even the GPS works on average speed of the away and return trip rather than actual speed, or so they say.

In actual fact there are 3 different speeds of light. One is the regular or 'actual' speed which is the same as the aberration measured speed, and is 304,475,873.2 m/sec. A second speed is the derived or 'experimental' speed which we have historically measured... this is 299,792,458 m/sec. The third speed is of course the 'inflated' speed, which results from the tangential motion of the emitter ... this is equal to the speed along the hypotenuse of the triangle where the base is the absolute tangential speed of the emitter, and the upright is the actual speed namely 304,475,873.2 m/sec and works out to approximately 309,232,453.6 m/sec... (this inflated speed is of course only a theoretical consideration which serves us well in visualizing what takes place.)   

In recent weeks I've gone a long way into explaining how the speed of light functions... however, I still haven't explained how we can perceive an inflated "c" that's the same as the aberration "c"... also how exactly can the experimental c of 299,792,458 m/sec hold true for distances perpendicular to the absolute velocity. This appears to be the case for the GPS system to function correctly (but it actually uses the average of the two legs of the return trip... to and from the target)!

Well, in the paper about meshing the speeds of light, (see ), I established the relative distance (along the absolute velocity direction), - mapped out by 2 seconds of light - involving a forward and return leg, as 299,792,458 m. So obviously one subjectively has taken this as the 'speed' of light... however this is not so! The forward speed is much slower and lasts a bit longer than 1 second, because of the forward absolute motion, and the return leg is obviously much faster and lasts a bit less than 1 second (resulting in 299,792,458 m for each leg) [1]! However once science mistakenly came up with this conception and naturally used the same length for the perpendicular speed of light, the "miracle" was brought about!

How was this accomplished? Well 299,792,458 m/sec actually represents 0.984618107 of the true aberration speed of light [2], the latter being equal to 304,475,873.2 m/sec [3]... this means that when you look at the "activity" triangle with V-absolute along the base, and 299,792,458 m/sec along the upright... then the hypotenuse becomes only 0.984618107 of the c-inflated... Hence a miracle has been seen to be happening: we appear to have c the same speed for both orbital and perpendicular motion... in  our absolute  frame as 304,475,873.2 m/sec... but of course that's not strictly true! This is simply because 0.984618107 of the c-inflated is equal to c-aberration! And in the relative frame we have the same distance mapped out for both the orbital and the perpendicular - despite different speeds involved - namely 299,792,458 m!

A more accurate way of explaining the process, is that the extra length involved in defining the 'inflated' actually slows the 'real' speed down to become the 'experimental' speed... this means that the 'inflated' is really a distance rather than a speed and this is why I said earlier that it was only a theoretical consideration. The same is true along the orbit as well... there's an inflation of length that slows the 'real' from 304,475,873.2 m/sec to the 'experimental' of 299,792,458 m/sec.

This is how the "miracle" of the "constant" speed of light - regardless of whether you're in the subjective frame or the absolute frame - takes place! I began thinking about this paradox in 1981... beginning my intense struggle on the subject a bit later in 1987 - on the centenary of the Michelson-Morley experiment. It's now been 25 years and I feel satisfied with the results achieved!

In conclusion then, any sane person will accept that motion is real, and that time is merely a derived concept from comparing different motions... it is only a "tool"! Only two types of people believe in einsteinian relativity: those who are psychotic and those who do not understand its implications! The reason Einstein is credited with relativity is because he was the only one bold or insane enough to take credit for such ideas... by 1905 everything about relativity had already been published by men such as Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Poincare... yet both Lorentz and Michelson were not insane enough to subscribe to the theory!

I am glad to have seen the day when sanity and rationality is to triumph over fudge-factors and science fiction principles!

Frank Russo.

Ps - the "inflated" speed of light is only a theoretical consideration which serves us well in visualizing what takes place... however the true speed of light is of course the "aberration" speed.


1. Russo F.P.(1998) The Michelson-Morley experiment : the final solution? (Addendum); Speculations in Science and Technology, 21, 201-203.

2. Russo F.P.(1998) The Michelson-Morley experiment : the final solution? Speculations in Science and Technology, 21, 73-78.

3. Russo F.P.(1995) Analysis of Stellar Aberration yields the real speed of Light. Speculations in Science and Technology,18, 200- 204.
















Web Analytics