Recently, astronomers have reinterpreted the red-shift (Hubble Constant) as a decrease of space-gauge in time.  The best current value generally throughout the universe for this constant, comes to 7.2 x 10^-11 parts annually.  This means that everything in the universe is shrinking at this rate.  In 111 nonillion years, our Milky Way galaxy will have shrunk to the size of a walnut.
    What happens is that once light undergoes emission, its frequency remains stable as propagates through space, though its frequency of emission is dependent upon the emission radii of the electron producing this light at the time of its emission.  What astronomers see as they look out at distant galaxies billions of light-years distant, is light emitted billions of years ago, when everything was bigger, resulting in an overall red-shift in all directions.

    To understand this, the exact nature of space must be understood.

    Over two thousand years ago, the Greek philosophers pondered space, concluding that it was not existence, but that which lay between existence.  Three hundred years ago, Newton determined space to have special qualities, even though he thought it to be empty.  Shortly thereafter, Leibniz and Berkeley, with post-scholastic logic, thought space to be the will of God and precluded by thought, thus its inertial qualities were given divine explanation.  Eighty years ago, Mach proposed space to be anchored to the stars and Einstein thought it part of a space-time manifold.  Ten years ago, theoreticians proposed it to be a quantum vacuum.  In their own way, each has been quite right, and each quite wrong.  The problem is, men can't decide whether it is or isn't.
    This is the greatest detriment to cosmology, yet to become a science, the inability of its theoreticians to explain space.
    The earliest versions of space came from classical Greek philosophy in the attempt to express and explain what was thought to be the corpuscular nature of substance.
    Light, for example, was thought to be the bouncing of corpuscles off various surfaces as it became directed into the eyes.  Thus, between these corpuscles of light and substance, was space.  This space was thought to be empty, the notion reinforced by Democritus in his explanation of atomism, but there was a semantic problem.
    If space was empty, hence being nothing, how could it exist?  It was an impossible condition, resolved by saying space was the presence of nothing, or the absence of something, or that which resided between things, such as corpuscles, or that which did not exist.  This was about 400 B.C.  Such a view has been doggedly retained by scientists, particularly those who view particles as fundamental, as well as the invocation of virtual particles.
    Both Rene Descartes and Newton revised these views, particularly in reference to celestial space relating to inertial behavior.
    Descartes believed space to be relative and fluid like, filled with eddies and currents, and contained within an abstract volume, such as one described by a three-dimensional rigid frame of reference.  Newton thought space to be absolute and geometrically stable, until the behavior of inertia and momentum were considered.   This is where he ran into problems,  because of the inertial qualities of mass relative to its movement through space.  The only reason he was able to give for this, was that space could feel mass and thus impart inertial response to it.
    Shortly thereafter, about 1675, Leibniz opposed Newton's explanation for inertia, insisting that space only had meaning in terms of force, providing an explanation of his own with the introduction of monads.  Leibniz believed that space can only be conceived as force, as devised by God, his monads doing the rest.
    By now, space had already taken a full circle of inexplicability.  Denied the permission to be real by the Greek philosophers, and now by Leibniz, who claimed that the absolute space of Newton, as empty space, was meaningless.
     Less than fifty years later, Bishop George Berkeley stepped into the picture by reinforcing the view that space must be the will of God;  that no object can exist apart from the mind.  With this steadfast, though somewhat irrational barrage, Newton's absolute space gave way.
    At this time, scientists had discovered the nature of the pendulum, that despite the preponderance of the earth's mass beneath it, it held position relative to the celestial sphere, inviting Ernst Mach to provide explanation.  Inertia was linked to the stars far away he thought, what today astronomers might link to dark matter.  This was the last stage for the evolution of space in the minds of men, when Einstein took hold of it, impressed the propositions of Mach and Leibniz, he gave it a final touch by adding time to it, yielding his famous space-time continuum.  That has been almost a century ago.
    Today, within only the last decade, space has taken on several new features, or in the least, explanations.
    There has been devotees to the speculation in quantum theory, where a new type of space has been devised, called a quantum vacuum, though currently it remains esoteric and comprehensively restricted.
    Presently, ontological space has proven to be the most promising option.  Similar to Newtonian space, it is real and not imaginary.  Unlike Newtonian space, it is not empty, because it is conceived as real substance.  It is also considered unbounded and non-clinical, which means you cannot dissect it.  To make matters easier, it is conceived under static conditions without the concept of time.  In this sense, it occurs only in the NOW, the past and future being  meaningless, subjective perceptions.  Ontological space is defined as homogeneous substance extending infinitely in all directions.    It is also referred to as an infinite volume.
    Because it is homogeneous, it has no parts, structure or internal forces, and as such, it behaves exactly like empty space.  Anything within it, such as some high speed projectile, will find itself unencumbered by its presence, and move through it like a hot knife through butter.  In all respect, though it is something, it behaves the same as empty space, in that it is wholly inert.
    To Newton, such space would be wholly unsuitable in supporting inertia and basically insignificant to the scheme of things.
    Not to be denied by this daunting problem, theoreticians began to probe other aspects of its nature.  Presuming it to be as real as any other conception of the same, it had the unique quality of being very simple, as simple as nothing, with an arbitrarily assigned value of zero.
    The value was assigned principally because ontological space has no meaningful surface area.  For example, a cube, having six sides, would be assigned the degree of complexity of six.  A point, would also have been assigned the value zero, as would a line and a surface.  In this process of comparing simplicity, a family of four simple forms was recognized.   This, combined with the idea that only the most simple can be ultimate, it was a foregone conclusion that these four forms have the best chance of existence, equal to unity, which means, that they cannot not exist.
    Extensive studies, principally concerning the behavior of surfaces, brought to light several things.
    First, surfaces as form, could exist, providing space as substance existed;  whereas form (nothing in comparison to substance) superimposed against the typical space of Newton through Einstein, would have no meaning, since such space was also nothing.  But, superimposed against substance, form is meaningful.
    Secondly, it was learned that surfaces (which are not rigid and static) serve as fundamental entities to the system, and as such provide motion and energy, as well as a little Newtonian stability and inertia.
    Another thing discovered was that because surfaces are continually moving and bumping into each other, they undergo an interactive process which can cause a field of surfaces to become more and more dense, leading to a change in the space-gauge, leading to an overall red-shift in every direction.

    As space is defined as unbounded, surfaces are as well unbounded because they are infinitely large along two dimensions and infinitely thin along the third dimension.  Because all forms have the highest probably of existing (1.0), where there is one surface, there may be many.  Thus, the field, comprising these surfaces, is as well infinite.  The field is defined as being space with the superimposition of surfaces.
    Because surfaces are infinitely thin, they have no volume, nor for that matter, area.  Because they have no volume, they have no structure.  Because they have no structure, they are neither rigid, malleable nor elastic.
    Because they are not rigid, they may freely move within space.
    Because they have no volume, they have no mass.  Because they have no mass, their motion is inertial free and without momentum.
    Because they have no structure, they may move freely through one another without resistance or impediment to their motion.
    Accordingly, surfaces may be found in any position and orientation in the field.  It is for this reason,  the field is termed a "random field".
    For any finite region of this field, there are a finite number of surfaces cutting through it.  Presently, the best estimate for the field density per unit volume, has been roughly determined to be 1.51 x 10³⁷ surfaces per cm³, along with probably the same number of points and lines. This represents the fine structure of our physical universe; the ultimate resolution of the size, weight and movement of the smallest particles.
    With such a high density of surfaces cutting through any unit volume, the propagation of certain waves, such as a simple wave, analogous to electromagnetic radiation corresponding to particles with a spin of one, such as photons and neutrinos, is assured.  The illustration following depicts the propagation trajectory of a simple wave, which, though following a generally rectilinear path, microscopically follows a zig-zagged path from surface to surface.

    The wave size, shown as a bell curve on the last surface shown, generally remains constant overall, though, depending upon how each new surface is encountered, it may enlarge or become smaller from surface to surface, as shown in the following illustration.

     However, it is totally unaffected by the distance it must travel between surfaces, in a field of normal density.  The basic rule:  if a wave must travel a distance equivalent to or greater than three times the distance between surfaces, it will decay into many smaller wavelets, which then may propagate through the field.  Of course, since these new wavelets will be smaller than the original wave, they will most likely decay too.  This is how neutrinos are generated in stars.  Other than this, simple waves, once generated, remain unaffected by the change in field density as they propagate through the field.  Note:  Simple waves cannot propagate through space by itself.
    Though the field itself is completely random and ungoverned, it is a verdant field of possibility, where all sorts of combinations and interaction can occur.  One of these is the random and therefor spontaneous generation of simple field configurations, such as a hydrogen nuclei.  Despite such configurations being accidental, the most common occurrences occur within certain size parameters, directly related to the field density.  As the field density increases in time, the size of newly formed field configurations becomes smaller.  This is why, when we look immense distances into deep space, celestial objects are bigger, because their constituent field configurations comprising them, such as hydrogen, are also larger in the past.  Light however, as mentioned, does not become smaller (frequency increase) as it travels these immense distances and enters our local field.  What astronomers see then, is the red-shift.
 
 

    Astronomers, in radio mapping the sky, have observed a number of inexplicable fringe objects, sometimes referred to as quasi-radio sources (QSRs), as well as optical anomalies, known as quasi-stellar sources (QSSs).  Most of these occur in the transition boundary beyond optical resolution, into radio resolution, particularly the QSSs.  The actual distance of QSRs is difficult to determine.
    All of them belong to a single class of Doppler anomalies, and sub-classes of nebulae and galaxies, and few might be single, exceptionally energetic stars and double stars.  As Doppler anomalies, they may be traveling away from the observer, thus shifting their spectrum into the radio end, or traveling towards the observer with various spectral shifts towards the blue end.  Of these, those traveling with the highest rate of speed, appear more energetic and spectral.

    Considering that the universe is unbounded, as well as virtually empty, the highest vacuums being attainable only just outside the earth's atmosphere, and considering that it is permeated with absolute space, no doubt filled with all sorts of Descartian currents and eddies (not being homogenous and isotropic), it is conceivable that some galaxies might find themselves accidentally channeled over exceptionally long periods of time, gaining momentum within the universe's unbounded gravitational field, achieving velocities approaching that of light.  Any arriving at our observational horizon, after falling in our direction, would appear as exceptional powerful mixed radio and stellar sources called QSGs.