[Matthew Malley (OP)]

Could it be possible that the universe is expanding at 186,000 miles per second, making for light's "speed limit" and light being the only truly stationary stuff in our universe? What if it's not light that's doing the moving; it's us (and the universe) that's expanding away from it? Matt Malley, Thousand Oaks, CA

[Spring Theory]

The universe expansion is not constant - it is accelerating.  So according to your question, light could not be stationary.

[Matthew Malley (OP)]

True Spring Theory but what if, in the distant future, we discover that the speed of light increases in conjunction with the increase of speed in the expansion of the universe?

[chiralSPO]

We know that can't be. If light were accelerating at the same rate that the universe was expanding, the redshift would not be observed.

There is another problem with assuming that light is stationary: we can see stars from multiple directions (all around us!) If light were stationary, and we were moving such that we only happened to see the light we passed through, then we would only see light from one direction (exactly opposite the direction we were moving).

[Matthew Malley (OP)]

I see your point Chiral but remember; the universe isn't a "giant 3 dimensional room", as Einstein discovered. It exists in ways that the senses and instinct don't easily comprehend. What if the redshifting is due to us doing the moving instead of light? My theory isn't postulating that light is accelerating with the expanding universe - I'm theorizing that light is genuinely stationary and the universe is expanding and accelerating away from it, giving us the illusion that it's light that is doing the moving when in my theorized reality, it's us who are doing the moving instead.

[chiralSPO]

I see your point Chiral but remember; the universe isn't a "giant 3 dimensional room", as Einstein discovered. It exists in ways that the senses and instinct don't easily comprehend. What if the redshifting is due to us doing the moving instead of light? My theory isn't postulating that light is accelerating with the expanding universe - I'm theorizing that light is genuinely stationary and the universe is expanding and accelerating away from it, giving us the illusion that it's light that is doing the moving when in my theorized reality, it's us who are doing the moving instead.

If the light is stationary, and we are moving, why is the light from different objects redshifted by different amounts?

I'm also still not certain how we could perceive light from different directions if it is stationary and we are moving... Are we moving in one direction? Are we moving outward in all directions? If the latter, please explain what is meant by "moving"? If the former, how could we perceive light from any direction other than the one we are moving toward?

Also, since you mention Einstein, whose frame of reference are we talking about? If I understand correctly (big if), from the hypothetical perspective of a photon traveling at the speed of light, the photon must be stationary with respect to itself, and due to Lorentz length and time contractions associated with a velocity of c, the photon is stationary to the rest of the universe (along the trajectory that it is traveling) and completes a journey of 0 distance in 0 time. Doesn't make any intuitive sense, but as far as I understand, nothing does when traveling at c!

[Matthew Malley (OP)]

Good points Chiral!
1) "...why is the light from different objects redshifted by different amounts?" Maybe, (since this is a theory after all), the universe, in different locations, is expanding at different speeds.
2) "...I'm also still not certain how we could perceive light from different directions if it is stationary and we are moving... Are we moving in one direction? Are we moving outward in all directions? If the latter, please explain what is meant by "moving"? If the former, how could we perceive light from any direction other than the one we are moving toward?" - I propose that we are moving, relative to the entire universe, in all directions and it is gravity that is distorting our perception of light in it's stationary state, which can explain how we can see light from all directions, in various states of redshift.
3) "Also, since you mention Einstein, whose frame of reference are we talking about? If I understand correctly (big if), from the hypothetical perspective of a photon traveling at the speed of light, the photon must be stationary with respect to itself, and due to Lorentz length and time contractions associated with a velocity of c, the photon is stationary to the rest of the universe (along the trajectory that it is traveling) and completes a journey of 0 distance in 0 time. Doesn't make any intuitive sense, but as far as I understand, nothing does when traveling at c!" - This is where I believe Light to be truly stationary! Light travels 0 distance in 0 time. This is just a feeling at this point, but I feel strongly about this theory of mine that light is stationary.

[zvibenyosef]

What if the movement we are talking about is not through space but time? According to Einsteins law of relativity, light can travel from one end of the universe to the other, and experience no time. As far as the light is concerned no movement has taken place, in time. However if a human on the surface of earth started a stopwatch at the exact moment the light began its journey, they would be extremely old  by the time the light arrived at its destination in space. 

[PmbPhy]

Could it be possible that the universe is expanding at 186,000 miles per second, making for light's "speed limit" and light being the only truly stationary stuff in our universe? What if it's not light that's doing the moving; it's us (and the universe) that's expanding away from it? Matt Malley, Thousand Oaks, CA

The problem with that is that light cannot be stationary. What makes you think it is?

[guest39538]

Could it be possible that the universe is expanding at 186,000 miles per second, making for light's "speed limit" and light being the only truly stationary stuff in our universe? What if it's not light that's doing the moving; it's us (and the universe) that's expanding away from it? Matt Malley, Thousand Oaks, CA

Light can not be stationary because when I turn of the light by the switch it would still be there and not dark.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

I see your point Chiral but remember; the universe isn't a "giant 3 dimensional room", as Einstein discovered. It exists in ways that the senses and instinct don't easily comprehend. What if the redshifting is due to us doing the moving instead of light? My theory isn't postulating that light is accelerating with the expanding universe - I'm theorizing that light is genuinely stationary and the universe is expanding and accelerating away from it, giving us the illusion that it's light that is doing the moving when in my theorized reality, it's us who are doing the moving instead.

 I've being there before...
  Change the concept of photon and "moving",
  Assume for a second that a photon is like a "incomplete gear", an "attempt" to become a "gear."
  Gear=Stable Particle
 Stable gears = Not energy but configuration of energy given from and "on" space.
  Photon = incomplete gear or hybrid gear in between Energy 50% plus gear 50%.

 Hard to put in words, but is to make easy to comprehend "a photon" does not move, nor any other particle, not with a speed.
  "C" is but a state of space, a photon "traveling from earth A to the moon B" is not traveling, not C is happening too...
  C is related with gravity, photon is not traveling but "happening" and the "happening of the attempt photon" is "frozen on it's on frame indeed" but the frozen frame of the attempt is "being carried" by space because C of gravity,,,

 Photons and any other particles do not travel at C or not C, photons and any other particles happen at C from A to B.
  The distance in between A and B is of 10C, and the minimum period of "Distance" on this scale is 0,1C.
  0,1C being the speed of light, not "speed"! 0,1C being the rate of the attempt, from 0,0000000....1C  up until 0,1C "the photonic attempt" was the same frame, "the photon" "(X)Moving"/ The photon "(V)Happening" from 0,1C up to 0,2C is not longer the same photon attempt of its past...
 
 Gravity is not constant but is proportional.
  Photonic attempt are constant but disproportional/unstable.

 Space XYZ is volume which allows distances thus time = It's the stadium.
  Gravity is the track.
    And photons are the horses, a static horse that exists only on the present (present is a frozen frame)
 that is constantly at C being overlapped by the next frame backwards...
  The photon on the present is "at the rate of C" overlapped "backwards" by the possibility of the next frame,on that instant photon on the present has created a temporary past (short memory) but constant on time!

  There is no past as a physical dimension for "anything to move", there is distances and scales different scales on the both edges of a cone create time in between the edges( point to point) but only when in comparison and interaction...
  There is no time when in comparison of space to A or to B, but only when in comparisons of A to B and B to A is another distance...
  Space is not expanding "universe is", expansion "for me at least" must require the existence of "time" the possibility for it to exist, outside in universal expansion there is no immediate point to point comparison...
  Meaning universe as a point of reference is only relative to itself or other universes, "space" when in comparison to universe does not produce nor distances... Unless one is to have universe A and at least a B.

 Depends only if you accept big bang as real and as a "beginning", for me space and universe are two different things...
 Universe seems to be like a hyper nova expansion/explosion, a fluctuation happening on the sheet that is space, the existence of space allowed universe or bang to happen...
 
 Gravity is not a force, gravity is like acceleration and C is the limit, although if the car is happening at C, and both are spinning with no direction or reference time take place to determinate scales and order, when time takes place speeds are able to exist for now energy can be conserved and memory is presented...
  The car "destiny" can now suffer the illusion of gravity that it's no longer moving on a straight line towards infinity...

 I can relate why your photon can be stationary, and no one is able to state for sure it's not, but all the expectations about the environment are irrelevant without "reference" to compare, light can't be compared to anything, it ignores anything, even a BH, light only does not ignore space... Thus light is but a virtual interference over, from and happening on space wherever space is presented...

  FOr a photon to be and reamin stationary "on any frame" from A to B, the photon would have to become invisible for at any given instant of C from A to B photon would be subjected to the very expansion of the universe which is given to surpass C...
  I do not see how a photon can travel from A to B "as it does" having the same intensity and geometry(size) without becoming invisible...
  Being so I assume that the photon "if constant as a single photon" from A to B would become invisible on the first frame of C..  It does not for the photon is happening from A to B on space, not traveling trough space at C...
 Gravity is at C, photon is an interference a "recipe" for a particle configuration, that is caused and confounded with the electron, the presence of the electron ridding C of gravity as if it was a reference is interference on space itself on the electron frame of existence...


 Time spins the electron, photons are electron attempts...
 Spinning electron conserves the free energy extracted from space by it's photons and things start to get interesting...

 I'm suggesting earth of today is not earth of tomorrow, the past of this earth of today will be a previous are of "now/tomorrow" empty space...
  Travel in time tomorrow to this Earth of today, and one is to appear in the vacuum of space and die...

 You are also not being, everything there is is happening at C.
 We are A because earth is B, remove B and our bodies will no longer be A, it's about exchange of instant information...

 Look at your hand it's only happening and existing there for the spinning particles (with a pitch) are able to store the energy f the photonic configuration when on matter, space exist and everything our hands included are but frequencies...
  Like can't travel for the photonic configuration on light does not store conserve energy...
  Light "is there" but light is not where it's not, nor forward nor backwards,,,,

 Light/photons can't travel for the can't exist outside their frames of existence/unreachable present...
 But yes I do believe that each photon exists as a frozen frame of static energy, although one that is fragmented and submitted to time/volume...