5 Alternative Explanations for the Redshift we Observe 

A man I worked for 40+ years ago felt that loss of energy was the most likely cause. I think he hypothesized that space or some portions of actually is, for light, like walking through mud. Since the speed of light is constant, any loss of energy would be seen in a red shift effect.

The newly discovered plasma redshift cross section explains a long range of phenomena; including the cosmological redshift, and the intrinsic redshift of Sun, stars, galaxies and quasars. It explains the beautiful black body spectrum of the CMB, and it predicts correctly: a) the observed XRB, b) the magnitude redshift relation for supernovae, and c) the surface- brightness-redshift relation for galaxies. There is no need for Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Accelerated Expansion, and Black Holes. The universe is quasi-static and can renew itself forever . There is no cosmic time dilation. In intergalactic space, the average electron temperature is T = 2.7 million K, and the average electron density is N = 0.0002 per cubic cm. Plasma redshift is derived theoretically from conventional axioms of physics by using more accurate methods than those conventionally used. The main difference is: 1) the proper inclusion of the dielectric constant, 2) more exact calculations of imaginary part of the dielectric constant, and as required 3) a quantum mechanical treatment of the interactions. Publication: American Physical Society, APS April Meeting 2011, April 30-May 3, 2011, abstract id. K1.019 What a discovery, they concluded that only a gas can cause a redshift. I mean, you kinda get to such conclusions when you don't read too much bad sci-fi and take it seriously and are actually realistic.

This is just what I have been thinking for some years, I am aware of Arp's work and Eric Lerner's work and also Milo Wolff's work on the wave nature of matter and I support the hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, the Big Bang never happened and that the Universe is infinite and NEVER HAD A BEGINNING and therefor WILL NEVER HAVE AN ENDING

You should add Refractional Redshift which I recently discovered to the list- this is BY FAR the most common and yet unknown type of redshift. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the frequency remains constant but the speed of light changes. Since f=c/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too. This results in a redshift when light refracts in a less denser material (since its speed increases=> its wavelength increases), and in a blueshift when it enters a more dense material. This phenomenon was used by Pound and Rebka in their 'gravitational redshift experiment', which actually required a bag of helium in order to get the light to redshift. So gravitational redshift does not actually exist, and what they observed was just refractional redshift due to helium refraction.

You should check the Vasile effect, it explains why redshift occurs during refraction from any gaseous atmosphere into space. Because REFRACTION not only changes the speed of light, but also its WAVELENGTH. So when the speed of light increases, as the light gets refracted from a gas surrounding a star or a planet into the vacuum, its wavelength also increases (in order to preserve the frequency which remains constant during refraction). This is what Vasile aka moi calls REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, and it has nothing to do with gravity. Because in the gravitational redshift experiment they had to use a HELIUM bag in order to get the light to redshift. So the only logical conclusion of that experiment should have been that refractional redshift exists and gravitational redshift doesnt.

The "evidence" for the big bang consists of the red shift assumption and the cosmic microwave background, both of which are highly doubtful assumptions.

I've just started reading Arp's book Seeing Red. Pretty interesting so far. He holds no punches.

Excellent scientific analysis. Always need to contemplate alternative hypotheses for any phenomenon in order to enrich research and theoretical explanation.

4:32 I personally think the gravitation shift makes the most sense. Imagine a fog of non-luminescent celestial objects spanning the void of space each deforming the gravitation field around them like a little divot on an otherwise smooth piece of paper. As light travels through this torrential textured space time, it red shifts. This would also explain why objects more distant have a greater redshift than objects closer to us, which would otherwise make no sense.

Great video btw, well made.

Please continue to make content like this to expose this information . I pray future layman's versions come out . : )

I like how you cover all the subjects in plasma cosmology that the thunderbolt project hasn't yet or won't cover for obvious reasons. These types of questions I've had you explain perfectly. Thanks for all your shared hard work👌

This is such a crucial assumption that if it were not valid, Cosmology would collapse. All cosmologists almost without exception, sweep this under the carpet. They are all focused on the Hubble tension. They have much bigger problems.

This makes sense to me. Thanks.

Dusty plasma is its own engine, thanks to the laws of electrodynamics and the right hand rule. Arp also showed that there was quantized red shift with QSOs.

Great summary! How would the concentric galactic 'mega-walls' perfectly surrounding our galaxy (1990) fit into this? cheers

Or EM field may have a tiny, yet non-zero resistance, causing energy loss when oscillating from electric to magnetic and back. The resistance so small that we can only see its effect over huge time/space. Such resistance will not cause any image blurring as it only affects energy transfer between two elements of EM quantum field, but not the direction of the radiation.

They don't generally use redshift by itself to determine distance. Distance absolutely has a relationship with redshift. And yes, an approximation of distance can be made by looking at redshift for extremely distant galaxies. But generally redshift is calculated, and distance is determined separately. And we know the spectra of elements are always the same. We use emission and absorption to determine redshift. But distance can be determined by parallax, apparent brightness and luminosity.

The other thing to consider is light like any other wave or particle slows down over time as other things interact with it. So a drop of 0.5mm/s/year explains why Hubble observed that the redshift seems to increase depending on the distance from earth. Unlike Hubble, I propose that this is due to lights journey to us, not any observation affects we might have a million light years from us. I think as our moon goes around earth, earth around the sun, and sun around the galaxy, it seems likely that our Galaxy is revolving causing other galaxies to come toward and move away. But the increase in redshift seeming to surround and be affected by the earth makes no sense. But redshift being dependant on its journey, not our observation can be used then to trace some of it's journey. But the end result is that there is not an expanding universe as assumed. Therefore we don't need 95% dark matter to explain the expansion accelerating. Because it is not happening. That stuff is all from the assumption that light speed is fixed. But we know light speed on other medium is not fixed, and further the different frequencies are affected slightly differently. So obviously the redshift should represent the travel involved getting to us.

@SeethePattern Do you know where can I publish my Refractional Redshift for peer review ? My demonstration is infailible, and its extremely simple, I've asked several physicians and they were completely unaware that refraction causes redshift, and when I explained them why they finally admited that it does but did not want to admit that the Pound and Rebka gravitational redshift experiment was based on this refractional redshift, even if its obvious that it was. Because otherwise they would have not used helium which refracts light and causes it to redshift.

I saw that hour long video where arp explains this. Feel asleep and have no idea what he was talking about but I trust him 😂

great

10 yrs ago, anyone/everyone would think i was a bit nuts if i told them I believed the true(er) stellar and galactic theories/models to be those of the electric and/or plasma universe theories. But I'm starting to see a shift in the willingness yo consider an alternative 'point of view' I am 99% confident that the grandchildren of todays youth will be learning about these topics as part of thier science education. By an ASI authority, which has determined a more suitable manner in which to safeguard human stupidity from itself while educating them on the true nature of our reality and existence. The answers to the valid interpretation of nature may be disguised in a partial form of the truth in order to maintain a dominant advantage over the masses but it is also just as logical that it is yo protect ourselves, from ourselves.

Does anyone know which papers Gareth refers to around 4:50, referencing research that "clearly shows" gravitational redshift to be higher from the center of the galaxy cluster vs. from the edge? If this could be expanded to include super clusters, filaments or chunks of filaments - this effect might be very significant, or perhaps dominant at distances over 10 bn light years. The total amount of mass in a sphere of radius 13.8 Gly will redshift the lightwaves to infinity (or "stretching" them out to nothing). This might be a "hard stop" for the reach of light in general.

Starlight, Time and the New Physics by Dr John Hartnett is a fascinating read on the subject of conflicts between observations and accepted astronomical models

Galaxy redshift and the Pioneer Anomaly may be the same phenomena. So, gravitational field explanation.

I think that even if we assume redshift indicates recessional velocity, the problem is that they are juxtaposing images of the universe in many different ages or stages of its evolution and merging them to combine an image of the current "expanding" universe. But the expansion they observe is actually backwards in time. So its actually a Contraction in normal time. They dont take time into account at all, so they "forget" that those high redshift galaxies are not moving away from us and from each other now, but 10 billions years ago, and that if they are moving farther and farther apart from each other as we are aproaching the big bang, it is a blatant contradiction because galaxies should be in fact be CLOSER and closer to each other as we rewind time and look at those early stages of the universe.

5:36 "The redshift is dependent upon the relative wavelength." You've misunderstood. The shift relative to the wavelength is different because it's an absolute shift, precisely like doppler. An absolute shift is relatively "larger" in shorter wavelengths because of the comparison between the distance of a wavelength and the distance of the absolute shift. IE Compton scatter is indistinguishable from doppler. (with the exception of the blur) 5:40 "On top of this it will actually cause a blurring effect" This is a misunderstanding in the literature itself based upon a fundamental misapprehension of optical physics. Blurring occurs from the overlap of multiple rays with different angles of incidence. (causing interference) This occurs at short range in various devices which are subject to compton scatter. However, at significant distances, the varied angles of incidence in the individual photons will not strike the same sensing surface of the eye or apparatus. Thus no blurring occurs at significant distance, only reduced amplitude via reduction of photons reaching the destination. Scattering events at the edge of the solar system, for instance, will cause scattered photons with the slightest difference in the angle of incidence to miss the entire planet, no less be able to be capable of contributing to blur on a tiny sensing surface. The result would be that densities of plasma throughout the intergalactic media would be identifiable via light apparently coming from nowhere. (CMB) 9:08 "The photons would lose energy through what is called plasma redshift" That's just compton scatter described with different words, or from the wave nature of light rather than the particle viewpoint.

In lab we measure a tiny loss of photon energy while it interacts with an électron, that is a small red shift.

Cosmologists are the most sophisticated magicians. They can conjure up some explaination for all perceivable phenomenon and no one can find out how they do it.

8:26 WOW 😀! this may be the solution the "Cosmology in Crisis"-debacle needs !

is it not weird Stellar parallax is never used in astronomy anymore to verify stellar distances beyond 1 light year...?

Nice video and presentation. Page 5:40 distant quasar clearly visible from earth requires infinitesimal to zero scattering approaching to the solar system. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to focus at a targeted quasar. While Compton Scattering is a good idea and a bad application to explain redshift of distant quasar. Once scattered the image of quasar is lost entirely, disabling the associated redshift analysis. Brainless idea for no brainers.

Galaxy and companion quasar Galaxies have a nucleus surrounded by stars distributed along an equatorial disc or spiral arms. As a whole, galaxies and its family are migrating together through space in a common velocity. On top of the migration velocity we can add a tangential velocity applicable to each member star, vector sum into a higher compound velocity. According to the expanding universe theory, a galaxy and its family is expected to share a common redshift, however Halton Arp witness that is not so. Arp not knowing of the difference redshift is modified by the periphery disc velocity, Halton went ahead to falsify the expansion theory empty handed, and he quickly found himself in a defensive position. With a bit of ingenuity he claim that those redshift are “intrinsic redshift”, and in doing so failed to proof his claim.

Is there any actual evidence to support these alternate explanations? What are other serious academics defending this view?

You are a veritable wealth of information and you are very good at explaining things (you are an excellent teacher). I thank you for that. Most of my time until recently was spent in detailed studies of the moon's surface through a 12" Schmidt-cassegrain telescope. Over 1200 solid hours of it. I never bought into the entire expanding universe theory. Not sure why, but the very first time I read it, my BS alarm went off and it hasn't stopped since. Then when I recognized the forced attempts throughout history to separate science and consciousness (or spirituality) that were successful, sadly, I had to investigate to decide if it is was a planned conspiracy. They almost convinced me, until I discovered that we all (almost all) have telekinetic abilities (provable), and that woke me up again (thankfully). I had NO idea there we so many theories on what the red "shift" really is, but I know it is not Doppler shift caused by receding objects. And with the massive electric bands (currents) we now know criss-cross the universe connecting every object and passing energy (and information, I suspect), expansion is even FAR less likely. Keep up the good work. You are light years ahead of me, and that is OK - it makes you worth following!

A more complex explanation, probably wrong cause I suck at physics, is based on the radio wave like nature of light. We know the intensity of radio waves and all electromagnetic waves diminishes with square distance. And we know light is an electromagnetic wave. So just like a radio wave looses its strength and eventually fades out, so does a light wave. And we also know that short wave high frequency radio signals fade out faster than long wave low freq ones (thats why wifi 2.4 Ghz has longer range than 5 ghz). So I would assume the blue light signal having a shorter wave length and higher frequency than the red one will fade out or get "out of range" quicker. So by the time the light from a far galaxy reaches us it will loose most of its blue (short wave) signal and we will receive more red (long wave) signal. And this effect will be more pronounced as the distance increases, and less pronounced as it decreases. Which is exactly what we observe. But of course it could be a combination of this and others you mentioned (except the first), like the Wolf redshift which would locally increase the redshift (the first is the worst because it leads to utter non sense i.e. super luminic galaxies, dark energy & expanding space) Reference: "Red light has relatively long waves, around 700 nm long. Blue and purple light have short waves, around 400 nm. Shorter waves vibrate at higher frequencies and have higher energies. Red light has a frequency around 430 terahertz, while blue's frequency is closer to 750 terahertz."

How about gravity red shift? As a photon escapes from a gravity well it loses energy and results in a red shift. As that photon continues on its way, it passes near stars, galaxies and black holes; on each encounter the photon continues to red shift. If the "journey" is long enough, not only does the photon red shift but can shift further into the microwave range; thus explaining the CBR (cosmological background radiation). No need to connect the CBR to remnants of the big bang.

When we observe redshift is that a relative redshift? Both the observed objects and us are moving.

Light naturally loses energy or gravity is stretching it.

Space is not empty so if radio waves are slowed down so must be light to. Full of free electrons too. And gravity slows down light too. Plus lenses polarise too and digital censors too.

Am I missing something obvious? Even IF redshift (in galaxies) is due to recessional velocity, it is observed to be far greater in older images than in newer ones. This indicates a greater expansion in the distant past and much slower expansion in recent past. Even the theory of expanding space-time doesn't help because it cannot indicate when it may have sped up or slowed down.

Concerning the first theory you mentioned for redshift, why would space expand light and the distance between objects only? Why doesn't expand objects such stars, our planets and our bodies? Why wouldn't we see things surrounding us expanding if space (assuming space is something other than nothing) is expanding.

And here I thought I was alone! But one more "angle"; how about instead of large, single interactions as most are assuming, what if there were many, many extremely small energy losses. Not enough to bend a path of a photon, but just to lower it's energy just an infinitesimally small amount. But over 12 billion light years they could add up. There might be an observable cumulative effect, and it would vary depending on "what" the photon was traveling through. It would average out to the same cumulative effect for any given path from an object, so no broadening of the peaks. There's a whole grunch (scientific term) of gas nuclei, neutrinos, muons, other sub-atomic particles; and many, many other photons in "empty" space to interact with! Hey, dark matter? ;-) And we know from Pair Production that even approaching a nucleus can cause things to happen, it just has to get close.

Is there laboratory experiments demonstrating redshift? What if the light was always just red and never shifted? I dont know much about all this but ive never bought into the big bang

Cosmic radiation background, just like cosmological redshift, is not evidence for an expanding universe, because it can be explained in a static universe. How ? Using light equation E=hf, if the energy of light drops over cosmic distance then its frequency drops and the light wave lenght becomes longer and longer, thus shifting beyond redshift/visible spectrum into microwave and radiowave spectrum...so basically all galaxies that are beyond the visible universe will appear as microwave or radio galaxies...and that is your cosmic radiation background. This also solves Olber's paradox, in fact there is no paradox if you know basic physics. Basic physics say that waves attenuate with distance, as their kinetic energy is dissipated into the medium and transformed into heat...some say that this is only true for mechanical waves, like soundwaves, not for EM waves, but then again we know that light waves do loose energy when they hit particles like free electrons, and they convert their kinetic energy into thermal energy or heat, when they hit an object, much more than a soundwave does. And no one knows what an EM wave actually is and how it behaves over many billion light year trips...the current understading is that an EM wave is a particle, called photon, which behaves like a wave, which is a total non-sense.

sunlight gets redder if there's dust in the atmosphere. since there's dust in space, why would it not be the case there as well?

you don't even need 5, you don't even need 1!! all you need is THE POSSIBILITY that it could be ANY other mechanism that explains the observed redshift/distance relationship. However, science shows us that there is only 2 real mechanisms for a shift of light, both from relativity one is Doppler shift and the other is Einstein shift or 'gravitational shift'. It is trivial to show that the redshift with distance relationship (that works both ways) is NOT Doppler shift, and IS Gravitational shift. If a uniform homogeneous universe (that our universe is approximately), then you will get an obvious redshift with distance (in both directions). From Gravitational shift, (or as Hubble called it at the time 'Di-Sitter effect'). The Di-Sitter effect is a bit hard to visualize, but if you map on out on paper it is quite obvious, you share a higher proportion of the gravity from local objects, as does the object you are observing, and as a result of the distance you share a lower proportion of the gravity of the distant object, (and the same applies to the distant object looking at you). This means that local objects will look smaller and distant objects will look bigger, very local objects will even look blue, because you contribute a great deal to their 'gravity', and they do the same for you. So local objects can look blue (and it is assumed that this is Doppler shift and that object is moving towards us), and distant objects will look more red . The great thing about this is that you can confirm and test this effect in a lab (in a high rise building), and it is proven and established physics. That is opposed to cosmological (expansion) redshift, that has no basis in physics. If you have to reject established physics and invent a new process, you're probably wrong. The big bang might have happened the way it is explain, but so far the evidence does not support that claim.

Rarified hydrogen in space has a braking effect on light passing through it because of its' mass but instead of slowing the light it redshifts it. The energy transferred to the matter is radiated omnidirectionally as the so called microwave background radiation. One could say that the light heats the matter in a manner akin to friction. Or another way of looking at it is to say that the matter stretches the space that the light passes through. There is no visible smearing because the light reradiated is not in the visible spectrum.

I think the question that first requires a far greater degree of understanding is, Why do celestial bodies have an ecliptic plane? Why does everything tend to 'gravitate' to a singular plane and why is there only one celestial/planetary body located at each orbital distance from the central, polar axis? Ie, why do similar bodies of physical matter, like Earth and Venus, not both share the same orbit?

Gravitational redshift is not an alternate explanation because it doesnt exist. I have proved that it was actually confused with Refractional redshift because Pound and Rebka used a helium bag in their gravitational redshift experiment ! Helium which caused an increase in the speed and also in the *wavelength* of light. The problem is that for some reason scientists are completely unaware that refraction causes a shift in the wavelength of light.

It would be logical to deduce from the speed limit of light that Einstein spoke of thatrecessional Doppler redshift does not occur.

Loss of energy? Due to gravity affect? Climbing out of gravity well; plus, going through and about gravity fields of stars and galaxies; PLUS, fighting against the micro gravity each photon encounters as the aether pushes back against travel through the aether. Both baryonic matter and photons do not like to share space in the aether. The aether squeezes them tightly with its rings of force creating gravity. Gravity from mass and the movement of mass or simply the movement of photons.

Are there any quasars that have no or very low redshift? If one of your theories is correct, there shouldn't be any.

Is there any evidence for an expanding universe other than redshift?

I have a little theory of my own. What if the universe is a hypersphere or has even more dimensions. That have influence on light particles. What if the light particles are trapped as seen, in our 3 space dimension universe. But the 3 space dimensions are wrapped in 4 dimensions or higher. Bended in on itself, making a circle. If light travels in circle's. Would it not have some sort of centrifugal force. And if so, the energy loss could be used to determine how big this circle might be? Then again. Maybe multiple redshift effects act at the same time. So space expansion might be the case, but at a much lesser scale than previously presumed.

Nemes' photos of the nuclei of iron show a decrease in the size of neutrons and their linking energy rays in the juice of a leaf as it dehydrated.

Why isn’t gravitational redshift taken into account??

The problem with the static universe is that an infinite universe would be awash with blinding light from all directions. I believe that the universe is more than likely cyclical, and that it is toroidal and so immense we cannot even measure its curvature. As space and objects in space move through time we also move through this toroidal universe in a sin wave pattern with each peak and valley being complete opposites. At one point space moves at maximum speed and time stops this is the source of all bosons including photons and neutrinos, at the other end time moves at maximum speed and all space is contracted infinitesimally, this is the source of all baryons and things with mass.

What about the temperature of space changing? Light is million of years old. Million of years ago, space was hotter. As it cools, so would whatever medium light is traveling through. Makes more sense than massive galaxies picking up speed as everything races from us. If temp is a factor, we could be basically static except for gravity controlled cases. Just a thought

if recessional redshift is all redshift then why is light very redshifted from a black hole compared to surround stars when a black hole isn't receding more than the surrounding stars. That's not Doppler effect that's something else. Also gravity is already the stretching of space so isn't cosmological redshift already accounted for as gravity, and Doppler is also already accounted for so I don't see the need for cosmological redshift.

Most astronomers reject Arp's interpretation of the data since the anomalous observations could be explained by perspective effects. Reportedly, some of Arp's calculations seem to be simply "bad mathematics".

In Ron Hatch's book, "Escape from Einstein," he suggests that gravitational redshift is caused by the flux density gradient, or ether medium gradient. The ether medium gradient becomes less dense as you move away from the core, or the spin axis of the quasar or plasmoid. Galaxies with a large bulge have been shown to have a redder color, I think this is related to the pinch size of current inflow. A redder galaxy, or redshifted-quasar, has a smaller pinch and is less dense. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140422084655.htm Hatch also suggests that when radiation or photon is emitted, the energy of the photon stays the same as it comes out of the gravity well, or plasmoid. So a photon or radiation coming out of the gravity-well would produce a smaller wavelength, larger frequency of light, near the denser core of the quasar, and as the photon comes out of the gravity-well, to where the ether medium becomes less dense, the photon would then create a larger wavelength, lower frequency, due to the less dense medium, as the photon vibrates the medium. Thus the proton produces a red-shifting dispersion of the lines, as it moves out of the gravity well. So by Hatch's standards a photon or radiation would be particles, that are emitted, but they would produce a vibration as they moved through the ether medium, this is the duality of light. So the inverse of Hatch's gravitational redshift, observed from outside looking in, would be a widening of the spectral lines, the width would be narrow for the spectral lines from outer portion of a quasar and wider line for a narrow, more-steep, density-gradient near the denser core of the quasar. This would be a widening of the spectral lines, or dispersion, a narrow band from the wider, more-uniform gradient of the outer part of the quasar, and a wider spectral line for the more dense-packed inner core. The fact that we see a widening of the spectral line, or dispersion of the spectral lines, violates Einstein's gravitational red-shift, which predicts a very sharp spectral line, because he says the photon redshifts all the way out, rather than the photon creating a changing frequency in the ether medium, as it comes out.

From a psychological viewpoint, it seems to me the greatest resistance of cosmological new theory revolves around electricity and red shift. The subconscious may or may not know the truth, but it most certainly knows what is bullshit, because hiding and protecting the bullshit from the conscious analytical mind is its function. This manifests as resistance because truth doesn't fear bullshit but bullshit will fear the truth. Therefore, we can assume that the subjects most resistent to change are incorrect, and the proposed changes most resisted are correct. Then again, maybe that's just bullshit.

12:03 Log-antilog Conformal Field Condensation, coincidence and interference Singularity-point Correspondence, which is pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates in i-reflection superposition, all-ways all-at-once sync-duration holography because Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing containment of frozen-static potential hyper-hypo temporal fluidity and is the simplest Conception in any potential possibilities Totality.

So if gravitational redshift is a distinct phenomenon which is not caused by refraction, then why did Pound and Rebka need a bag of HELIUM in order to demonstrate Einsteins theory ???? I think its obvious why. Because without the helium refraction there was NO redshift from gravitational potential

Like Gareth's work? Listen to him do a long form show @ watch?v=A-6jgtdSWuo Thanks for the hard work!! Watching the subs mount man, it's great.

How can space expand? it has no properties, it is but a distance between things.

Einsteinian Redshift (1). If photons are emitted (created)(i mean re-created) near the surface of a quasar (a super massive star say), then here the hi gravity (or whatever Einstein called it) slows light, & also slows atomic processes (due to ticking dilation), & hencely the emitted photons are immediately redshifted during creation, ie compared to photons emitted at an ordinary star. This redshift does not cause dispersion. Larmorian Redshift (2). During (1) The hi speed of the aetherwind flowing towards the quasar (where aether is destroyed) slows atomic processes by the Larmorian factor (in addition to the slowing in (1)). No dispersion ............................... .............. ................ ............... .................. ................ Einsteinian Redshift (3). The nearness of mass slows light, hencely photons stretch as they propagate away from the quasar. The head of each photon is accelerating faster than the tail. There is a little longitudinal dispersion if photons are propagating directly away from the quasar, & when propagating at an angle then higher frequency photons will be bent towards the quasar hencely giving transvers dispersion. I know that Einstein Shift will not produce dispersion of any kind, but (3) is not due to Einstein Shift even though my naming names Einstein, & the true cause can produce longitudinal dispersion &or transverse dispersion but i wont explain here. Krafftian Redshift (4). Aether flowing towards the quasar is stretched as the aether accelerates, & photons propagating away from the quasar stretch in the aether. Imagine the head of the photon, this propagates at c km/s in the aether, & the head accelerates in the direction of propagation (according to an observer on the quasar) because the aether inflow is slower at greater distance. Imagine the tail of that photon, this accelerates more slowly than the head, hencely the photon stretches. Krafft wrote about this kind of stretching in 1963. There is no dispersion ........... .............. ............. .............. ........... .............. ............. ............. .............. ........... ........ Ranzan's Dynamic Steady State Universe Redshift (5). Photons propagating through the cosmic cells of our infinite universe are stretched due to (4) as they approach micro mass (eg electrons) & also while they approach macro mass (eg stars). Plus they get another dose of stretching due to (4) when departing micro mass & macro mass. This double whammy of stretching (ie firstly during approach & secondly during departure)is counterintuitive (indeed Marmet doesn't understand), but if u think about it u might get it. Aether stretches on both approach & departure, & the photons stretch with the aether. Handy hint -- think of what happens to the head & tail of photons. No dispersion. ................ ............... ............... ............... ......... ................. ..................... ...... ........... Redshift (6)(7)(8)(9). Other doses of redshift in accordance with old tired light & new tired light theories etc (but i doubt it). .............. ......... .............. ............ ..................... ...................... ................ ....................... .................. ................. ........ ....... ........ ......... ......... ........ ............... Arp's redshifts at quasars are i think explained by (1)(2)(3)(4). Although there are some exotic complications identified by Arp which i haven’t considered yet. ................... ................... ........................... ......................... ................. ........................ ................................ Nearly forgot. Doppler Redshift (10).

This "Red Shift is a bit confusing, as we are measuring the past yes? And the degree of past is, of course, variable to the distance, so we are measuring where things WERE thousands, millions, and billions of years ago. So how do we know we are not measuring how fast space WAS expanding, thousands, millions, and billions of years ago? Is it possible that space (whatever that is, and I will try to understand "virtual" particles") WAS expanding ever faster, the further back in time we perceive? If this is true, then possibly the further away one looked, the greater the red shift would be, for THAT light which left that star however long ago. ( It possibly WAS red shifted via more rapid expansion THEN, and has encountered ever slower expansion over an ever longer journey) The correlation between time and distance could create a FALSE idea that expansion is currently accelerating, when in fact it may be slowing down or staying the same now. A steady slowing of the expansion rate over time, may create a steady appearance of accelerating expansion over distance, and do we assume steady expansion over all space, and all time. (Why would "space" expand the same everywhere all the time.) After all, if the impossible happened, and a galaxy 10 billion light years away instantly reversed its motion towards us, it appears we would not know that happened for about 10 billion years. In the Doppler effect, a race car moving away transmits a deeper sound. If the race car is 3 seconds away, and instantly reversed towards us ( ignore the the physics of that instant reversal) we would not hear the higher sound until AFTER the Doppler affected lower sound passed our ears, three seconds later. For three seconds we would think the car was still moving away. I am uncertain why light is said not to have a Doppler affect. Also what is the error margin of this measurement? For Instance, what space gases between our perception exist over millions of light years, and how does this phase shift light perception? I understand the JWST telescope is finding immense gas fields we were previously not as aware of. I understand we do not see the expected blurring, yet those gases do exist. And when we map these vast thousands, millions and billions of light years distant galaxies, in order to know where they are NOW we would have to know what there motion was over the past thousands, millions and billions of years, as well as know how said space was expanding during that variable time, and this would completely change the map. In ten billion years a galaxy, a galaxy cluster and a super cluster, and variable space expansion, can move stuff a long way. Can we even map the current physical location of our own galaxy, and does gravity propagate at light speed.

I never could quite grasp how some galaxies are approaching and merging with their neighbours, in an apparently ever-expanding universe?

I may not be smart enough to completely explain but doesnt it seem a bit strange that mainstream theory says we are seeing light that traveled in a straight line from wherever it came from. We are also assuming that it did not pass through a medium that distorted the light by the time it got to us. how can we be so sure that the red shift we measure isnt due to some other cause that could have distorted the lightwaves we measure? What about earths atmosphere as well? Isnt all the light that makes it to a telescope on the ground traveling theough billions of "air molecules" how do we know that has no impact on the light waves

why does expanding space 'stretch the light'? space is one thing and light is a different thing .... light is photons and photons are energy packets .... it is not clear to me why space should affect light that way even if space is expanding

A more honest scientific analysis but question me this. Why does everything in the entire universe decay EXCEPT the speed of light. That would make the photo a perpetual motion machine which cannot exist.

Funny I just discovered a new type of redshift which completely disproves gravitational redshift and in effect General Relativity and the Big Bang Theory (which is based on it) and my favourite astrophysicist doesnt seem to care

expanding space puts me see red.

The classical redshift theory, as questionable as it is, already brings other aspects of cosmology into question... (Which is conveniently ignored and disregarded.) Namely that the compounding nature of the redshift is indicative of a non - Euclidian 'space-time fabric geometry,' such as a more, hyperbolic-like geometry. Until we can definitively answer why redshift observations and measurements of 'neighbouring' celestial bodies are in stark contradiction to other observations and measurements of the two bodies, we must question the validity of redshift theory

If you look at the raw images I think its clear they really have no idea what they are seeing

recession is NOT the same as expansion velocity.

seriously? there's no theory that incorporates the red/blue of magnetic fields? one pole shifts the light red, the other blue. northern lights tend toward green blue white and the south tend towards pink purple..

It has already been shown that photons are affected by gravity and magnetic energy...the red shift theory has many flaws

My sixth explanation is brave! There are four major theories that needs to be kicked to the curb. Bare with me and read until the end before you start shaking your head! 1: Photons doesn't exists. 2: Space is nothing 3: Light has no speed. 4: Electrons doesn't exist. Let me explain. Since space is nothing, it has no properties and can therefor not expand. Neither can anything like a wave move through it. It is not any obstacle for anything changing position in it. Light is nothing that moves through space. It's an instantaneous energy transfer between atoms that can not be measured with human measurements like time and distance. Atoms don't have a fixed number of electrons circling a nucleus in orbits that determined their atomic weight. An atom is an unstable energy repository. It can increase or decrease it's energy amount by absorbing and transmitting. Human eyes are just a bunch of cells that evolution has made more and more sensitive to energy transfers. We receive and transmit with all our cells but mostly the ones on the surface of our biological being. What we call light is just an energy transfer from surface cells via nerve cells to the brain. Since all atoms expands if they can't radiate/transmit the human brain gets what we call a heat stroke if it's exposed with to much energy transfer and needs immediate energy transmitting to survive. The energy transfer works like this between all atoms in the universe. You can even feel it how you are energized by light and depleted by darkness. An single stand alone atom will through spooky action at distance always transmit towards cold. Easiest for me to explain for you is, think about it as feelers or tentacles but they are not there in reality. They emanate in all directions but nothing happens until a contact with another atom is established. It is always instant since remember space is nothing so we can't really say until. All this energy transfer has a spin that is the same in both atoms. The receiving atom will now have extra energy and the transmitting atom less. But remember all atoms are connected this way so it balance it self's out in the lightest atom. But due to the spin in the transfer as soon as two atoms are next to each other a magnetic field will propagate and create a torus gravity will kick in. To explain gravity is another topic. When more atoms create a grid, think about as a boll ocean play room. Some of the atoms will no longer be at the surface and can't transmit with ease because the surface atoms has energy balance with all other atoms on surfaces in space. So the subsurface atoms will build up energy and heat. The deeper they get the more energy and heat they retain. Eventually they will reach critical mass and become a heavier element. This process is repeated endlessly creating heavier and heavier atoms in the periodic system. More stable then other. Due to geological processes and other natural reorganizations some circulation occurs in mass so heavier atoms resurface and transmit more then the lighter atom. This is what we perceive as light. What we see is not reflections in the mirror but atoms connecting with atoms in your cells. Creating an image of our surface that is not uniform. There are some evidence for this. 1: Earth is expanding due to it's atmosphere. All stellar objects with a gas atmosphere expands due to internal energy transfers exceeds external transfers. This is creating the tectonic plates, dropping of sea levels, changing the planets spin. The moon on the other hand is loosing mass and is moving away. Stars and giant gas planets are also expanding. Eventually internal pressure blow up the star and the atoms can transfer to other objects and eventually create a new star out of a gas planet. All stars in the universe is connected this way. But we can't see it because this energy transfer can't be seen from the side. It can only be recorded when a sensor or your eye etc. are in energy transfer. This is why space is black in all direction where your eyes or instruments cant energy transfer. 2: If you stand in bright light and walks in to a dark room. You will see red light for a while. This is the energy transfer in your eyes atoms. They will eventually transfer energy to the colder atoms in your surroundings and to your brain. In a few minutes you will start to receive transfers from the walls and objects in the room and start to be able to"see" again. 3: The so called red shift is energy transfers delayed in atoms. Any energy transfer from far away will be a repeated thing and remember your sensor or eye needs to be colder to receive energy from a transmitter. Your sensor and eye will be hotter then the atoms in dark space so they are invisible to us even though they are great in numbers. Again the reason why space is mostly black. But stare long enough at a spot in the sky and you will change the balance in your surface atoms and "see" more "light". But it will drain your energy. You will feel it. 4: Big bang never happened. There you have the Olsson theory. I can't give you any mathematical formula for two reasons. Space is nothing so it can't be used in mathematical formulas and I'm not a mathematician so I can't make up a fantasy formula like many others do with constants. Constants don't exist in nature. Thank you for taking your time.

I do not believe in galaxies faster than light

When one mentions "mainstream" it makes it difficult to take anything seriously.

Einstein was right the universe is static

I think the simplest explanation for the redshift is that blue and red light do not correlate in time (especially at such astronomical timescales). Because they travel at different speeds. We know for a fact that red light travels faster than blue light in a medium (like water, glass). And we also know for a fact that space is not really a vacuum, there are gas clouds everywere, microscopic dust and other particles like neutrinos which fill the space...therefore even in space light will travel through different mediums. And the red light will travel faster than the blue light. So when light travels for billions of years through such mediums the red light will get ahead by a million years or more...and the blue light will eventually come after a million years. So if this theory is correct then in a million years we will observe blueshifted galaxies instead of red. And we will think that the universe is contracting of course :-)

The ether was never disproven

Please note, my answer is based on real physic, not current belief. you like a reach man who want to back winner of the race by backing all of of them. there is no expansion. it is based on ignorant of photon internal structure and it's interaction with gravity. in real physic=Persian/our visitor, photon has complex disk shape structure as I sent schismatic drawing to western leader in 1980s. mankind d not have technology to see it directly and ignore indirect evidence. I pay 100,000 Chinese Yuan to any one proving me wrong. Scientist are stupid and world leaders do not have the back boon, intelligence, power or the ball to order their scientist to prove me wrong and expose their lies. So currently over 90% of physic is fiction and lies continue.

A more complex explanation, probably wrong cause I suck at physics, is based on the radio wave like nature of light. We know the intensity of radio waves and all electromagnetic waves diminishes with square distance. And we know light is an electromagnetic wave. So just like a radio wave looses its strength and eventually fades out, so does a light wave. And we also know that short wave high frequency radio signals fade out faster than long wave low freq ones (thats why wifi 2.4 Ghz has longer range than 5 ghz). So I would assume the blue light signal having a shorter wave length and higher frequency than the red one will fade out or get "out of range" quicker. So by the time the light from a far galaxy reaches us it will loose most of its blue (short wave) signal and we will receive more red (long wave) signal. And this effect will be more pronounced as the distance increases, and less pronounced as it decreases. Which is exactly what we observe. But of course it could be a combination of this and others you mentioned (except the first), like the Wolf redshift which would locally increase the redshift (the first is the worst because it leads to utter non sense i.e. super luminic galaxies, dark energy & expanding space) Reference: "Red light has relatively long waves, around 700 nm long. Blue and purple light have short waves, around 400 nm. Shorter waves vibrate at higher frequencies and have higher energies. Red light has a frequency around 430 terahertz, while blue's frequency is closer to 750 terahertz."

Funny I just discovered a new type of redshift which completely disproves gravitational redshift and in effect General Relativity and the Big Bang Theory (which is based on it) and my favourite astrophysicist doesnt seem to care