No Expansion: The Hubble Redshift Explained by Variable Speed of Light 

I remember when I first realized that we have no independent (of redshift) way of measuring recessional velocities of galaxies. It all depends on the assumption that redshift is all caused by recessional velocities. The I learned about Halton Arp’s work. It is amazing not that scientists have a prefered model (cosmological expansion) but that they do not even care to consider observations that seem to contradict that assumption.

FINALLY! I've been contemplating this question for years while doubting expansion. I also have doubts about a "big bang" or any beginning/creation and this explanation helps considerably.

That was a deal-breaker for me in physics in the 1970's, that the speed of galaxies was inferred but not confirmed by direct observation. I had the same qualms about the existence of quarks.

Best explanation of the cosmological redshift I've seen so far! In my limited view, this has also consequences on how we measure the distances of redshifted stars / galaxies.

I've never understood why "tired light" theory for red shifting was discounted. Thank you for another, plausible explanation.

Love your vids on Variable Speed of C! I'm a 13 year hobby Physicist, and have thought for the past like 7 Years that Variable Speed of C hasn't been done justice, and is heavily contorted by others. You on the other hand... Are definitely doing it justice which is awesome NGL. 👏 Keep up the good work bruh! 🖤

You are doing good work Unzicker. We musn't become too monolithic to question the basic assumptions of our theories- even if they hold exalted status amongst the community.

The conventional view is that gravity does not alter the speed of light, but lengthens its wavelength. The early universe was more dense than todays expanded universe and therefore had a more powerful gravitational field. It seems logical that light climbing away from this denser universe towards us would not slow down but wuld have its wavelength red shifted. Though speed c is 186,000 mp sec in a vaccuum, space is not a perfect vaccuum. It is well known that light slows when passing thro air, for example, so while space is a lot more tenuous than air it has a proton here and there and in some regions substantial clouds of hydrogen and helium, so light must be slowed when passing thro. By how much would light be slowed by passing thro a billion lyr of space?

I have been discussing with colleagues that since light interacts with all mass in the universe that causes light to lose energy and redshift with distance. I was going to use Sciama's (1953) approach to inertia to calculate it where I assume that inertia is a quantum field interaction responsible for inertia and the secondary Machian effect of all matter leads to redshift. Thanks for another great video. I look forward to reading your paper.

Very interesting video You provide interesting information and articles

Besides refraction, the redshift could also be explained by an energy loss of the light wave in the ether medium. That energy loss equates in a drop in frequency (aka redshift) and happens for every other wave...like sound waves, their energy gets lower and lower as distance increases, until it fades completely. If ether exists, as reason requires, and the double slit experiment proves, then a similar phenomenon is to be expected for light waves, altough on much larger distances- which is what we actually observe.

Although VSL theories are an interesting proposition, they raise a number of issues: - If the speed of light is variable, then how are we supposed to make measurements in the first place, since standardised measures of distance and time rely on the constancy of the speed of light. - Given a VSL theory, what replaces the definition of a null geodesic? - VSL theories in which the limiting speed of physical objects changes are not Lorentz invariant. The means by which Lorentz invariance is broken needs to be made clear and further more, if this involves a modification of the Lorentz group, one must make it clear how to determined the dynamical limit of physical objects. - The physical speed of light is determined by Maxwell's equations. You'd need to propose different equations that govern electromagnetism which lead to a variable speed of light associated with the wavelike solutions satisfying the new equations. - By introducing variable speed of light, you basically have to re-formulate any equation involving the speed of light. This will lead to a re-formulation of many physical theories and in each one, there will need to be a physical explanation as to why you chose to vary the speed of light in the first place. Overall, the assumption that the speed of light is variable seems more ad hoc than the assumption that the speed of light is constant, which already naturally follows from Maxwell's equations. In general, you are basically tasked to reformulate most of modern physics just to explain everything that we already know, which seems like more work than is needed. Additionally, how is the nature of causality explained? How do you make a distinction between massive and massless particles? And I'm sure there are many more questions to be asked. I would class VSL theories as more theoretical curiosities that are not very useful to actual physics, but are nonetheless interesting.

Thanks Alexander , excelent .

If the universe is not expanding, then the distant galaxies in the Hubble and Webb deep field pictures should be the same as the nearer galaxies. If we correct the spectra from the distant galaxies for the red shift, are there any differences from the nearer galaxies?

Very interesting presentation. Could you perhaps comment, in a future video, on the CMB and how that hangs together with VSL? Or, if you have already done so, please direct me to that video! Thanks.

The electrical and magnetic properties of free space would have to change to accommodate the VSL?

Really appreciate your effort to describe this and other physics - very apparent that you want to communicate clearly as possible. Thank you & Cheers from Seattle!

Red shift happens when we send light down a long fiberoptic cable. So, I am going to stick with photon drag as the biggest portion of red shift (ie. slowing down from passing particles). If it were speed, time, or gravity changing the shift then red shift would change back, similar to musicians on a train where the music changes as it goes through the wind, but changes back for the listeners in the car behind.

Dr. Unzicker, this is a fascinating presentation. Would you speak to the impact VSL has on cosmological time frames and the observable universe’s age? Additionally, is there an alternative to a steady state universe if expansion is fallacious?

I have a question: We live in a gravity well. Additionally: the vacuum medium of space through which light passes changes its properties (mu and epsilon) nearer to large gravitational masses causing light to correspondingly change its properties. The light from far away galaxies, falls in our gravity well the location from which we can observe their light after it has passed through that medium of interstellar space and then the denser medium in our gravity well. Hence the question: Is the redshift of a distant galaxy measured on the surface of the earth a different value from the value measured vs. a telescope in space near earth, vs. measured from L2? In other words, is the redshift value higher when measured nearer to the surface of the earth? If this is the case, the universe could be, I suppose, on average, static.

Could the the Variable Speed of Light idea be explained by light being emergent with an uncertain future continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy? You say "matter in the Universe is on average at rest" a continuous geometrical process could form this concept with the speed of light c² and time t² both squared because of spherical 4π symmetry. I have been looking at the JWST deep field image and we have gravitational lensing based on spherical geometry. We can see that light waves have formed into photons relative to the spherical surface, the light from far distant galaxies forming red arcs. Could we have a infinite Universe in the shape of a sphere as long as the sphere is expanding? One set of calculation for the finite sphere another or the infinite process.

Dr. Unzicker, what about the horizon problem? How can opposite regions of the hubble sphere (not causally connected) be at equilibrium if they were not "in touch" at the beginning of time? Maybe c -> infinity as t -> 0, and the entire universe was "connected" in the beginning, almost like a singularly...

Does this lead to any testable predictions? Like for example a decrease in frequency must mean that spectral lines are not where they used to be.How do I say this.. redshift is measured by the shift in certain spectral lines. But if there was a way to measure redshift apart from that, the line shift we measure should be double the redshift. Or not. But then is there ANY way to tell Expansion from C-change.

Redshift could be explained by observed increasing movement at greater distance. Observation is not rectilinear. It is bend just like the spirals of a galaxy. This bending could explain redshift in another way. It is like taking a picture with a curtain diafragma. The movement of the curtain creates a deformation of the light on the negative. It is the reason why cars in old pictures are deformed. This effect is also used with a fotofinish at games. A second question could be: is the center of the universe the same as the center of the observable universe? A third question: does light also have a kind of Bernoulli effect? (This could explain the randomness of everything we see) The expansion of the universe is not like blowing up a balloon.

Incredible, thank you!

When universe is smaller, gravity is stronger and time is slower? Red shift may be created by expansion (Doppler effect) and time dilation simultaneously? Is a gravity actually an emergent property of time dilation?

Hi ! A few years ago I developed a theory that explained the accelerating departure of galaxies and its rapid movement of rotation of them without the need to postulate the existence of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" respectively. I thought my idea was a good one as I used fewer hypotheses than these two "dark" entities. However, I knew that it could be one of dozens (or hundreds) of theories that try to explain these "dark" elements that, until now, still do not have concrete evidence, in addition to those used to explain the movement of galaxies. Roughly speaking, my article says that if our local space is shrinking (due to gravity) then we will see the distances increasing. For example: If our scale measures 1 meter and, after a long time, it starts to measure half a meter, a galaxy that was X meters away will now be measured as 2X meters away. So, in my article I verify that the rate of "shrinkage" of our space was 50% every 10 billion years. And that would explain the "dark energy" effect. However, without evidence, my article was in danger of being just one among so many other dropouts. in cyber space. However, searching the web I find something quite promising for me: "Universe mysteriously expanding, will double in size in 10 billion years, finds Hubble" www.indiatoday.in/science/story/universe-expanding-mysteriously-will-double-in-size-in-10-billion-years-finds-hubble-1951827-2022-05-20 Which was exactly the evidence I was hoping for, that's exactly what my theory predicted: ["...Some Values .... Tj=3.15E17?s= 10 billion years That is, the Jocaxian Time, the time necessary for our space to contract in half, is 10 billion years..."] Link to my theory: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=91689 So now my theory had strong evidence in its favor :-) Another evidence I found, in favor of my theory, would be the increase in temperature due to to the shrinkage of space (as happens in a gas when it is compressed): Unexpectedly, The Universe Is Getting Hotter and Hotter as It Expands www.sciencealert.com/the-universe-is-getting-hotter-and-hotter-new-study-finds

If the Redshift is due to the variable speed of light, can we calculate the Hubble constant from the gravitational field due to the matter density of the universe?

At the beginning of your presentation you indicated that Mach's principle can be attributed to a variable speed of light. However, you didn't indicate how. Can you elaborate on it?

Once, scientists had an Idea about 'ether' in the universe, and by measuring the 'wind' from the ether they could understand movements in our solar system, now we know ether do not exist, but we have something else, fields, fields influenced by gravitational waves for example, but, would it not be possible to measure movements in the universe with the field? I assume the field are at a standstill? And if we could mark it in some way we could measure our movement in relation to the marking?

I didn't get why the ratio of the masses to the radius of the universe is decreasing when actually everything would be at rest. Or does just the observable part of the universe influence the speed of light?

Could the Hubble red shift be a combination of doppler shift and VSL. The universe as a whole has to expand or contract - it can’t be static can it?

I have been thinking about possible causes of the high redshifts of some quasars found by Arp -- Arp showed that these were not due to Doppler, hencely zero Bigbang. Arp introduced a fishy concept involving young atoms & old atoms, but i reckon that the causes might be as follows..... Einsteinian (ticking) 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 (Einsteinian ticking dilation), & hencely the emitted photons are immediately redshifted during creation (compared to photons emitted at ordinary stars). This redshift does not cause dispersion. Larmorian (ticking) 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 (Larmorian ticking dilation)(in addition to the Einsteinian ticking dilation in (1)). No dispersion Einsteinian (gravity) 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 transverse 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 (cosmic) 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 as they approach macro mass (eg stars). Plus they get another dose of stretching due to (4) as they depart 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. It produces stretching of photons, & bending of light, but does not produce any dispersion due to frequency, ie all frequencies are stretched by the same %, & all frequencies suffer the same amount of bending (ie contributing to lensing). Mainstream (faux) Redshifts (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Other doses of cosmic redshift in accordance with old tired light & new tired light theories etc (none of which impress me). And they would all cause lots of dispersion. Doppler Redshift (11). The genuine Doppler effect due to a quasar's velocity with respect to an observer. Arp's redshifts of quasars are i think explained by (1)(2)(3)(4), & of course (11). Although there are some exotic complications identified by Arp which i haven’t considered yet. After (1)(2)(3)(4)(11) have done their job in the vicinity of the quasar, then we get further redshifting due to (5), (5) being the one & only true cause of cosmic redshift. Here i don't count (11) Doppler as being a cosmic redshift, (11) is due to what happens at the quasar & what is happening at the observer, it isn't affected by what happens in the cosmos. (3) is a potential cause of cosmic redshift, but if u think about it u will see that it produces blueshift on approach to mass, & redshift on departure, the two negating. Ranzan mentions this. LENSING. (3) does however contribute to lensing, probably in equal measure to the lensing produced by (5). This is indicated by the 1.75 arcsec of bending near the Sun, of which 0.87 arcsec is due to (5)(sometimes called the Newtonian bending), & 0.87 arcsec is due to (3). (3) produces bending because photons are slowed on their nearside to the Sun, & hencely veer towards the Sun.

The accelerated contraction of the aether (or whatever you want to call the medium which electromagnetic waves propagate through) would also result in the illusion of the expansion of the universe

Are the contracting measuring scales relativistic at distance ?

What's not clear to me is, that you seem to assume final light cones. That is there has to be a moment zero, at which light and the effects of mass on the light speed begin to spread. Is that correct?

Isn’t it strange that gravity can be strong enough to counteract the ‘expansion of the universe,’ as evidenced by the existence of blueshifted galaxies? Is this observed shift real or apparent?

If you use variable speed of light instead of an expanding universe, will you be able to account for the cosmic microwave background?

Thank you, great vid. Now I am wondering about the dilemma that was created by non-expanding universe, because then it was asserted that we might be in for a "big crunch", i.e. the force of gravitation would pull all the distant galaxies in on itself?

Have you seen the work of Paris Herouni whose researches showed no CMB?

I was never convinced by the hypothetical cosmological expansion of space. And I have previously argued with others over the indiscernibility of local contraction of contents from expansion of the container, except by an external observer. And we are not external.

I had come to a similar idea. I saw it more in terms of us being in a gravity field and going deeper in it, so the gravity increases, and the light speed decrease, all due to time of course. It includes the space time you dislike, but the result is the same. I think gravity is missing in that model you propose here and the redshift is only an illusion, while it could be actually real, but not materially. If you think in terms of events, the event of the far star when it emits light, if we stayed put in time, there would be no shift, but since we are moving in time, there is one, and it translates into increased gravity. If we were to try and reach that other place physically, it would still take more energy to get to the synchronized event as time goes on. So in practice it's like we are moving away from each others anyway, just not in the distance planes.

I don't know if I should be saying this, but today your video has made me realize that we could explain all light experiments and Relativity with transparent matter. To explain the Hubble redshift and accelerating universe we start out with universe more densely populated with transparent matter. Then as time goes on the transparent matter sinks into the galaxies. Speed of light was slower in the past and now got redshifted. We start out with ether of 1800s and sprinkle our transparent matter in and beget the explanation for all light experiments. Just like glass is transparent because light doesn't vibrate electrons in the glass and yet light slows down in the glass, we have transparent matter slowing the light down to speed c at our time. We can see this matter will be attracted to planets and light will appear to be moving relative to the observer. Hubble redshift: transparent matter density goes down vs magic stretchy carpet expanding. Who is going to even believe this magic carpet exists?!

Using electron parameters and mass energy conversions, s^2 = kgm/A^2, s^2 = kgm^3/A^2s^2 and s^2 = kg/A^2m. If a kgm^3/A^2s^2 is multiplied by kg/A^2m it yields the numerical equivalent of a kgm/A^2 with an exponential difference of 1 x 10^-7. This calculation ignores the squaring of the second. Time is subject to size and mass and creates itself from the geometry of the area of space that is observed. When I say equivalent I mean numerically.

Redshift is best described by atomic density in space and within galaxies and quasars. Redshift due to atomic density mimics redshift by Doppler. Redshift is an intrinsic property. The evidence is that quasars start out as masses of neutrons, created within the relativistic jets of AGN, and as the neutrons decay into hydrogen the quasar blueshifts with age. Also there is a vary sparse medium of hydrogen that pervades space causing a slight redshift, AKA the tired light model.

Can't the huble redshift be explained by gravity alone? If it can't then why?

Dr. Unzicker, with reference to your article in Annalen der Physik 18 (2009) 57-70 page 5, my question regards this: (The cosmological redshift in Dicke’s proposal): Citate: ‘Although all matter is at rest in this model there is a galactic red shift. With increasing ǫ [and decreasing c] , the photon emitted in the past has more energy than its present counterpart. This might be thought to cause a ”blue shift”. However, a photon loses energy at twice the rate of loss characteristic of an atom, hence there is a net shift toward the red. ([9], p. 374 right). My question: what is ment with “its present counterpart”. Where can we find that photon? Where and what is the comparison? Ko Tilman alias Radiofun232 on YT 14 August 2022

unziker, your VLS theory then what equation? c = c * ( 1 - G/kg)^2 ?

In short.. while we see more and more of our universe, the light slows down. And this gives the illusion of a redshift. But what is C0 exactly? And is there a possible infinite outcome in the division?

Hi Unzicker, When you say matter stays relatively at rest but light is spreading out...my question is what is light spreading into? Infinite space?

I have two questions: 1. Since you have a sum over different masses, the variability depends on our distance from them. I suppose we can assume some homogeneous distribution. In that case, variability is due to variation of distances. If universe is expanding, in all directions, you are back to Dirac's time dependent gravitation constant hypothesis. 2. Is it a good assumption light is travelling in a vacuum through space? Light will interact with whatever on its path however rare the interactions may be, and over long distances it will change course. You can call that variable speed of light as well. Could all these esoteric theories are there because they assume an empty space? If space is not empty, the path of light will have a curvature reflecting its density, which depends on the mass of stars etc.. I think it is silly to assume otherwise. In the case of sun for example, you will have intense em fields with lots of material in it. They will divert any light passing nearby. I never felt good about the idea of gravitation changing space time. I think it is nonsense.

Thanks for moving the debate closer to (IMHO inevitably) the realisation simply that we cannot explain infinite concepts using finite means. Mathematics is a human construct. Cosmological phenomena are not, and this is why even mathematical genius as this (probably polymathic also) struggle to make sense of what we imagine to be reality. The search for explanation and resolution of reality is a noble and for many irresistible pursuit. Humans are uncomfortable with uncertainty, especially death all that is related to death and part of our unconscious conditioning and addictions. It seems obvious to me that notions of just one universe, or just one beginning, or of light, and what we sense via our brains and bodies (extending to the unknown level of the soul) being explicable, is all based on false premise. I love the maths and the challenges to past assumptions and the moving the debate on, but I wonder if a radically different approach might open possibilities to greater awareness and teachings of what reality actually is. Anyway thanks and love to all. Alan Chapman

If I may add to this … Red shift Big Bang could be an error. This relates to spectrometer error, calibration biased error? Consider this : (1) Light speed c shifts each time it passes in and out of - vacuum, gas, clear fluid and solid. (2) Any charge particles mixed into absolute vacuum causing vacuum permeability e0 to become >e0 so light speed < c. (3) Space within 1AU of solar are flooded with charged solar particles, made light speed < C. (4) Spectroscopes calibrated with solar were all in day time when light speed is < C. (5) Spectroscope calibrated in day time on earth contains blue shift bias (error). (6) Hubble study his galaxies at night unaware of blue shift error, declare receding galaxies and expanding universe. (7) hence the Big Bang theory. Question 1 : does the night sky also liter with charged particles? equalizing the blue shift? Answer 1a : If our night sky particle density equals day time then Hubble has nothing to declare with, with regards to galaxy recession. Answer 1b ; No, most charged particles were guided to and dissipated at earth’s polar regions with earth’s magnetosphere, leaving our night sky with more vacuum and little to no particles, the blue shift bias error prevailed. Question 2 : If all calibrations were made with solar, could all quasar data collected share a common recession rate? Answer : no two spectroscope’s calibration results aren’t identical since charged particles density varies by the state of Sun’s corona. Solar charged particles incur blue shift is just one anomaly and not the only smoking gun against Big Bang theory.

In my mind accelerated expansion of the Universe does not do good house with entropy theory. So, I have to admit that You present a far better explanation with VSL theory!

Light can change wavelength if one adopts the light model of Robert de Hilster. That is another viable explanation of red shift.

The sum \sum_i m_i/r_i in general depends on where we set the origin (since this affects the r_i). I claim that it is _impossible_ to make this independent of the location of the origin, if this sum is finite for some location of the origin. Just move the origin close to a nonzero mass to get the sum approaching infinity. Why is this not a problem? Stating it differently: this sum is either infinite, for all locations of the origin, or it depends on the location of the origin.

6:06 In the proximity of masses the speed of light is decreased because those masses are surrounded by GASES which REFRACT and slow the speed of light. And this is the same reason why the light coming from those stars or planets is Redshifted, because when light refracts from a gas to a vacuum its speed increases and its wavelength also increases ! And this is why Pound and Rebka used a HELIUM bag in their gravitational redshift experiment. Because they could not get a redshift from gravity otherwise.

It looks like VSL theory is also a tired light model. Am i right? VSL theories are closer to reality, than GR, because dispersion relations are *nonlinear* (even though can be linearized in the long wavelength regime).

Could you please fix the audio distortion?

Galactic redshift could also be caused by charged plasma gas (but not only by it), as apparently there is a phenomenon called `plasma redshift`. This plasma is found in the sun's corona and beyond, and in the galactic halo which surrounds all galaxies. So light has to pass through that plasma gas, which is millions of light years in size. And on the course of milliuon of years it will loose energy when traveling through charged plasma because it collides with electrons and there is an energy transfer. Since E=hf, a drop in energy is equivalent to a drop in frequency, which causes a redshift effect.

If all matter is stationary at the cosmological scale, that would be consistent with a steady state universe. But what isn't are things like low metalicity in far distant stars but not near ones and the fact that things aren't infinitely old but there no new matter appearing to make new stars, etc.

Suppose we have an infinite steady state universe that is not expanding. Olbers paradox questions: Why is the night sky dark? But it is not dark. Can we interpret the microwave background as highly red-shifted light in the night sky from an infinite number of distant stars that are too far away to observe directly? Would a model such as this give the observed spectrum for the microwave background?

When someone (like newton) says something like "time is constant" or (like Einstein) "lightspeed is constant" or "entropy increases" you have to pay attention to the context: axioms and assumptions and where the statement is being applied.

This theory would make sense if Gravitational redshift would actually EXIST. But it is more than obvious that what they claim to be a gravitational redshift is purely a Refractional Redshift. It is caused by the refraction of light from the gas surrounding massive objects like stars and planets into the vacuum. The reason is simple and it is due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes but the frequency doesnt. 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), like from the heliosphere into space, and in a blueshift when it refracts in 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.

a much better explanation than using the hubble constant to suggest the universe acts differently the further it gets from our observation. thanks

Seems like this theory still requires a rate of expansion, it’s just referred to as the expansion of the horizon. Tired light was mentioned, but that sounds like a much different theory than this one. Tired light just hypothesizes that the ether, or free space, has a very slight attenuation effect on light.

I think it would've been nice to derive the hubble constant from these principles. This is a good qualitative explanation, but, well, Unzicker himself has said enough about how quantitative descriptions are superior.

Take every particle in existence and assign it a random direction and it's partner with an opposite direction, all with the speed of light. Give them all the same origin position and then start the clock. What do you get?

Tired light is a better alternative to variable light speed. It immediately follows from E=hf that if light looses energy its frequency drops and causes a redshift. But it does not follow from variable light speed, because c=lambda*f, but lambda is not a constant, so if c slows it doesnt necesarilly mean that the frequency will reduce too. The frequency will reduce only if the wavelenghth lambda remains constant, or increases. Galactic redshift could also be caused by charged plasma gas (but not only by it), as apparently there is a phenomenon called `plasma redshift`. This plasma is found in the sun's corona and beyond, and in the galactic halo which surrounds all galaxies. So light has to pass through that plasma gas, which is millions of light years in size. And on the course of milliuon of years it will loose energy when traveling through charged plasma because it collides with electrons and there is an energy transfer. Since E=hf, a drop in energy is equivalent to a drop in frequency, which causes a redshift effect.

Round about 10 years ago ViaVetoTV "Plasma-Versum" and myself "Die Realitätstheorie" presented a physical explanation for the red shift. The Doppler Interpretation is simply falsified by the non linear red shift, which means all the wavelength or frequencies of a distant source must be red shifted by a constant value, which is equivalent to the velocity gaining distance of the source, but this has not been shown. The physical reason behind the observed fact of red shift is indeed the matter between the source and us. We detect red shift, because due to the interaction of light with the plasma and gaseous matter in the Universe, the energy is lowered, due to absorption. The effects are well known as for example Raman & Rayleigh Scattering, Stokes Shift etc.

So was Fred Hoyle right? The universe is static? So can we test it? If Hubble was right and the universe is really expanding then, in the future the red shift of the galaxies etc. in Hubble's data set will have increased. But if the universe is largely static then we should measure the same red shifts as seen by Hubble. Or have I just not understood your argument?

Would this change the estimate of the age of the universe?

Robert Duke in page 5:00 gave us a snack we didn’t know it took place. Medium of light must exist to make Doppler shift possible and hence for red/blue shifts. Didn’t we that?

Thanks for your videos. I am trying to get my head around what you mean by light is spreading. Would not light be spreading everywhere in all directions? Is there an age to the universe? Or is it eternal? But then why is light still spreading? I'm probably not expressing myself well. There seeems to something very deep and fundamental about photons. Without them, the universe would be dead, in every sense, photons are literally light and life giving. What it all means, who knows, but thats why I watch videos like these, not that I understand much. Can you do a video on the big bang or lack of one? I would like to hear how VSL ties in with that.

This reminds me of an analogy where I pointed out that fiat currency cannot be used to value gold/silver or anything. Precisely because it is not fixed so cannot be used as a basis of mensuration. Here we have light that is also non fixed being used as a unit of mensuration. Thats alchemy/magic for YOU.

What made me question the interpretation of redshifted galaxies as being due to the Doppler-like effect of recessional velocity and with it the notion that the universe is expanding was the announcement by the astrophysics community that the rate of cosmic expansion is increasing, not decreasing. Since the idea of expansion is based solely upon an inference that redshift is caused by recessional velocity, that the amount of redshift is directly proportional to distance, according to Hubble's Law, and that the further away a galaxy is, the more its spectrum is shifted toward the red, and thus, the further away it is, the faster it is receding, then how did astrophysicists come up with the idea that the expansion of the universe is speeding up and not slowing down? The further away a galaxy is, the further back in time we see it. So if galaxies are observed as being increasingly redshifted and therefore receding from us faster and faster the farther out in distance and back in time they are, then must not the rate of expansion be slowing down and not speeding up? If the universe were expanding faster at present than in the past, wouldn't we see nearby galaxies with greater redshifts than galaxies further away? Didn't Hubble himself state that redshift could also be interpreted as the result of gravity?

You are definitely an independent thinker, no doubts about that but answer this question, can you throw light? This is discussed in, A Short Treatise on the Space Time Continuum by Piankh.

One thing to note is that distant light passed through very clean space with zero matter interaction as they absorb, diffract and reflect the light - either way, it's not reaching Earth.. The light from distant stars had a clear path for the length of its entire journey. It has to be the (charge density / matter-energy elctro-positronic EM wave and gravity medium) sub-space field itself.. Think of space as a giant, close packed crystal of +ve charge balls bound by free-flowing, compressible, displace-able electro-gas.. -- Knock a cell free and you have an excess cell and excess -ve hole, both of which want to shoot their load to rebalance, while the rest of the field is pretty neatly close-packed and well balanced so doesn't want any excess charge, the fight causes an in-out vibration. These spherical positrons and electrons are the only stable permanent massive matter particles and make up protons and neutrons, thus everything bar unstable, high energy virtual particles (chunks and larger holes of subspace field) that rapidly decay into electrons and positrons.. -- This space is stretchy - the field cell (gap) size can vary, and indeed, electrons trap -1 base charge of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe, as does the positron when it pulls 1 cell''s worth away from the universe (that rapidly goes back to being close-packed, and once it's gone to the positron, it's gone (until the positron hits an electron so space can rebalance back to a close-packed crystal (great wave medium).. -- The thing is, this model is compatible with both idea.. A loss of -ve electro-gas to matter means less to hold the universe together, so a Dark Gravity model is possible with an expansion wave from a Big Bang in effect in the past or ongoing, with a corresponding gradual shrink towards centres of gravity, then a steep density gradient with packed core around protons and neutrons.. . -- Equally,there could simply be galaxies forming all over the universe that has always and will always be huge but finite and the same overall size - a giant ball of course (it's balls all the way up, all the way down, no pun intended much). In this case EVERYTHING slows down proportionally, conformally (like Dicke's view), all processes, while length contracts, in absolute terms, but locally all constants will measure the same no matter how dense the space as all measuring devices are effected too. -- The idea is Red Shift is caused by the changing field (charge) density, entering and leaving galaxies. It's a statistical thing too due to relative homogeneity of the universe but in reality some light will have spread it's wavelength in time more than other light from the same distance depending on the number of galaxies entered and left (and their density / how close to stars it got, though it can't have got very close or it wouldn't have reached us).. The min, max and average density are all pretty close until the centres of massive bodies and focal points of particles.

I finally found someone who I agree with. The idea that the universe is expanding is ridiculous. It makes more sense that light would slow as it passes through plasma fields.

In the hypothesis of a non expanding universe, in which I believe, the calculus of the speed of light would not be time-dependent.

I know that I am 2 months behind but please can some body explain to me what I get wrong. 1) Red shift is lower frequency of the light photon? 2) The energy of a photon is directly related to its frequency? 3) Read shift is lower energy in the photon? 4) Light photons travel slower in a media like air, glass, water etc.? 5) Light does not change color going through a media.? Even if it does slightly that would only mean it looses a little energy. 6) We know that the speed of the light photon slows down in a media so of cause the speed of light is variable. What I believe is said is that the speed of light IN A VACUUM IS CONSTANT. The thing is that we also know that space isn't perfect vacuum so how can we say that the light photon coming from a far away star is constant? 7) Wouldn't we be better off by saying that there is a maximum speed limit like we have absolute zero temperature (Zero Kelvin) and the speed of light in vacuum may be (or is) the same as the maximum speed?

It seems that the observation is the redshift. The assumption is that it is caused by recessional velocity. If this assumption was incorrect, Cosmology would collapse. But, It is an assumption. There is no other way of measuring recessional velocity. I have heard the time dilation of exploding distant supernovae is used as proof of recessional velocity being caused by expansion. The problem is that every time you measure speed of light, you get a constant and if there is a redshift regarfless the cause, you would get time dilation ib the observation. Thoughts

I have long wondered at the change in understanding about "empty space", in the period of time between the invention of the expanding universe to the current day. Specifically, when the theory was proposed, it was universally understood that "space" was entirely empty, a vacuum devoid of matter. Not just interstellar space, but even inside the heliosphere, between the earth and the sun. Now, of course, we know better. We know the solar wind carries a huge number of atomic particles in its low density plasma emissions, and that even interstellar space appears to contain an abundance of gas clouds and low density plasma. We also understand that the reason we see sunsets and sunrises in red hues is because the amount of atmospheric gas the sunlight must pass through at these times is significantly greater than at noon. We do not suppose that the red shift here is because the sun is moving away from the earth at extreme velocities at these times. We reason that more gas, more atomic matter present to absorb light, has the effect of absorbing more blue wave lengths than red, due to the size of the molecules and the wavelengths of light, and so more gas present between light sources causes red shift. Now, if we know that gas clouds pop up in the interstellar medium all over the place, and that the heliosphere of stars is also awash with atomic nuclei in the form of low density plasma (solar wind), then it follows that the farther away a star is from earth, the more gas it has passed through on the way from there to here. That is to say, if gas clouds are spread around the place, the greater the distance you travel across the place, the more gas you must pass through. And thus, the more redshift you must experience, not because of expansion of space, but due only to the attenuation of blue frequencies by gas. The thing is, either the light travelling from star to star goes through a bunch of gas or it doesn't. When the expending universe model was proposed, everyone said it doesn't. On account of space being empty, was the thing. Now we say there are huge clouds of gas in the every which place, and probably more besides that. Everywhere we look, we behold great clouds of gas. In that empty space. So, what's the deal? Does that gas cause red shift, as it does on earth, with the sunrise and the sunset? If it must, then it does, and so we must expect red shift to increase with the distance traveled by light coming to us, and so we don't really have a basis for the expanding universe model.

Space is filled with aether and acts like an optic filter, distance between the light transmitter and receiver affects the change in the light signal frequency sent, red shift is just due to space medium aethers velocity and density and aethers direction.

Unzicker, Doc, thanks for speaking truth. Idk about VSL but I'm open to it. I thank you for being honest and not following groupthink and robots and inventing new particles. I suppose you are correct about German physics given you and another favorite of mine Sabine are both. But you have a speaking cadence that can drive me crazy, lol, it goes something like this: "And... Um, well if we..." And uh well. Constantly. Lol. I still love ya though. Just try to change that up. Thanks for interviewing Dr Roubitalle. Perhaps you could look into SAFIRE and Anthony Perat and give us your thoughts?

There is an entirely easy explanation within Electro-statics and Electro-gravitics, with the subject of photons and sub-quantum particulate photinos. Photon have light speed velocity, can undergo gravitational lensing, and also escape. It is the smaller and less-energetic photinos, that undergo gravitational capture, or orbiting. If such cosmic light (i.e. approaching light) from distant galaxies are seen, then you have a collapsing area of the cosmos TOWARD you (Doppler shift). And you would suspect that any photons shooting away from you would appear as a red shift. But, the real truth, is that the majority of these other stellar and galactic sites have a vast majority of variable light, less-than-light-speed velocity, and they are captured photinos in that gravitational object's orbit. This makes the appearance of a red shift of the cosmos, when in actuality it is nothing of the sort. Free photons can mimic an expanding universe, while free (but captured) photinos mimic a collapsing universe. In truth, there is no quantititave and qualitative technological and engineering machinery that can differentiate between an expanding universe and variable light speed photinos. As such, this comes around to the point that the cosmos -IS- and remains, not necessarily a fixed steady state, but even a small perturbation and cavitation of the cosmos, much like the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun is so close at maximum and minimum elliptical orbit, that it roughly turns out to be a near-circle. So any cosmic small contraction and expansion all returns back to the qualitative steady state universe. The experiment is basically flawed from the start, using a conventional terran model of a car or train, and a viewer/listener. The train light shoots out photons (not variable photinos) or a horn with a valid frequency of decibels. This can not be said for all of the many cosmic graviational objects of stars, galaxies, and constellations out there. So, like the Michelson-Morley BS interferometer atop liquid mercury denying the existence of the Aether, ... this experiment is also flawed, and all further extrapolations from this data, and any continuing flawed expansion of thse concepts.

So we look at the Andromeda galaxy and see it is larger than our own galaxy. Could this be because the atoms were larger when the light was emitted?

If 'C' is fixed from the moment a photon is emitted from its source, then it would stand up to reason that if the source is moving away from an observer at some fraction of the speed of light, then the wavelength (remaining constant and at 'C' velocity away from source) would appear "red-shifted" when it actually is hitting the observers eyes at 'C' less the speed the source is receding away. It can't be the case where two different calculations of 'C' can be true at the same time (one from the moving source's perspective and one from the observers perspective). This is a flawed assumption from the time it was suggested many decades ago. If one were to calculate the closing speeds of protons traveling in opposing directions at the LHC, then the math says they are closing at nearly 2(C), and yet according to historically accepted Einsteinian Science, nothing can "close" spatial gaps any faster than 'C'. This is a physical and mathematical conundrum.

It's not c that changes directly, it's that eu.bu = 1/c*2 changes. If you rearrange this equation you get, c = sqr(1/eu.bu), which is exactly the form of the velocity of a transverse wave on a string, v= sqr(T/D), where T is tension (force , Newtons) and D is density of the string (Kg/m). Einstein explained in GR that where there's lots of mass, space-time curves. I say NO, it's space TENSION increases and of course in huge cosmological voids it would decrease.

Hefele-Keating experiment is disputed by Dr Ebert Spencer.

The universe expands, just like all of us, babies, dogs, plants, trees, oranges, seeds, etc... It is born, grows, consumes, reproduces, and then dies. Our universe, at some unimaginable scale, is itself, a living organism, living within a system of many others. The rabbit hole goes up and out just as far as it goes down and in.

I am warming up to the Variable Speed of Light explanatory power

A static universe then? What can be inferred about the age of the universe, the evolution of galaxies and large scale structure and the different classifications of star populations? VSL is indeed thinking outside of the box and a lot of thinking would need to be uprooted to make the paradigm work. But maybe "thinking outside of the box" is what cosmology needs right now.

Unfortunately I didn't see that you explained the linear relation between distance and redshift. For a convincing new explanation this is absolutely neccessary. If the speed of light depends on the local mass density, it could be linear if the density is homogeneous. But knowing that there are clusters out there, they could distort linearity quite significantly.

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 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 horizon of what we see is not defined by the speed of light, but by the light that still arrives, being constantly dispersed, i.e. weakened and additionally absorbed by intersteller stuff... rememember: before we had the hubble-ultra-deep-field-image there seemed to be nothing but darkness, unless we discovered that there was still some very weak light i.e. many more galaxies... and there is light that either just doesn't make it or is too weak to be perceived... objections?

I find it difficult to follow your idea’s. The idea is that propagating light cannot contract, that means: cannot change its frequency. In your words: (around 15.37 in the video: “propagating light has to maintain its wavelength”). The word “has to” is somewhat ambiguous, anyway. On the atomic scale the situation differs. That explains (correct me if I am wrong) why we can e.g. use spectrophotometers and can see frequency shifts in spectral lines when doing experiments with matter. But why has propagating light to maintain its wavelength? And even when this is true: when looking at stars in the galaxy it is that (…that) light/these frequencies that we see on earth on our spectrophotometers or radio telescopes. There is no other “light in a can” of the same (?) frequency (or in the same frequency band) that we can use to compare the light that we see now from star or galaxy X, e.g. sent out a few million years ago or so. On 15.37 you say: “the universe is not expanding materially and the light from galaxies is necessarily redshifted here”. Where does that “necessarily” come from? The crux is around 13.44-13.55 in your video where you say: “talking about propagating light the situation is different because it has to maintain its wavelength, so the wavelength emitted back then compared to the actual decreased wavelength appears longer, that means red-shifted”. Where does “the actual decreased wavelength” in your sentence/explanation come from (the frequency source)? Correct me if I am wrong, I am interested and follow almost all of your video’s. And gave you some tips about audio in the past. Ko Tilman alias Radiofun232 on You Tube. 13 August 2022.

The speed of light variable? Would have liked to hear Maxwell and Einstein's opinion.

I had an interesting thought. If you explain GR with VSL, the speed of light would drop to near zero at the surface of a black hole, so even if it were spinning at near the speed of light, it would barely be spinning at all. Nearby objects would behave as if it were spinning at near the speed of light which would increase with the inverse square of the distance, and so not too far away, objects would behave as if it is spinning very very fast even if it is only rotating once per billion years. It's like a temporal clock spring, a time spring. XD Me 1, Hawking 0

VSL, or any other explanation for a red shift dependent on distance travelled (rather than space expansion), would seem to greatly simplify some things. Like dark energy. Gone. Explanation of cause of universe beginning. Not an issue. Heat death of universe. Not required. I've never felt comfortable with the certainty expressed about the cause of the red shift.