Galaxies at east and west are each seen to be receding from us at three quarters of the speed of light so that, when they emitted the light that we now see, each was receding from the other at one and a half times the speed of light. No can do, scientists say? Sorry, it is evident. So how come?
Like this:
Remembering that the effect of 'matter' is composed of concentrations of the single ingredient of space, it is logical to conclude that what our temporal senses experience as strongly attractive atomic binding energy, weak atomic repulsion, gravity and galactic repulsion - due to long-range space extension - are all simply the governing harmonics of a single force natural and concomitant to the structural entity we think of as space.
Space, extending with distance, carries the galaxies within it, so that light emitted from a distant galaxy, immobile within the receding space at that point, is conducted (at the speed of light) by the space immobile at that point and the space immobile at all the points between there and here even though progressively receding relevant to each other and to 'here'. However, though space extends at a rate relevant to its distance, the wavelength of light does not extend, so that the light in passing here is seen to be 'red-shifted'. Where the space at the point of the light's emission is receding at the speed of light, the wavelength 'shift' of light passing here will be at nul and, where emitted from sources receding at beyond the speed of light, the wave will reverse to become an inverse wave - though this will only be appreciated as light received from the increasingly receding light source then becomes progressively less red-shifted and finally progressively blue-shifted.
As chemical organisms that 'live' and so persist in observation across distance, we observe now and now and now at different points across space as our chemical material 'processes' or 'is processed' within the expansion of space relevant to other space, our physical senses and mental conclusions in our brief bubble of consciousness thus showing us a Universe both incomplete and in action.
Therefore although Universe is already complete, our 'experience' as an integral part of the process of this completion evidences a Universe in action at a rate, varying with our experience but fixed relevant to other chemical processes, which we call 'time'. However, in reality, such observation is the result only of our chemical process, and in reality timeless Universe is simultaneously both complete and static. The physical realities of yesterday and tomorrow exist concurrently, though the chemical mechanism of our memory can only be of our experience of yesterday. It is also worth mentioning that, as Universe has no option other than to be precisely as it is, it is perfect, even though our experience of such perfection may not always perceive it as being ideal.
As our experience is exclusively of observation as 'living' organisms, it is not surprising if we have difficulty in appreciating these realities. However, neither our inability nor our opinions can influence them in any way, as we and they are an integral part of the same reality.
This explanation shows us how simple the underlying reality is: an already complete and perfect Universe composed of a single ingredient, with us and our bothersome supposition as simply a trivial and insignificant aspect of the process of Universal completion.
Difficult? - Nah! Simple.
In fact, when you come to think about it, absolutely simple: it is what it is and how it is. Isn't that an absolute reality? Then appreciate it for what it is. Forget the demented apes with their grab and get or fail. Besides, the actual experience of living within Universe is both interesting and magical, no?
One other minor thought: I tend to trust the ineffably sure and simple Universe rather more than I do the tortured mathematicised opinions about it of one of its specious anthropoid inhabitants already so richly proven in error.
