Red Shift

[martinrlaw]

When we look at an object one million light years away, we observe a red shit which suggests, in the absence of proof of inherent red shift, that the object is moving away from us at a speed calculated from the amount of the red shift. If we look at an object that is a hundred million light years away it appears to be moving away from us at a considerably faster speed and a billion light years away even faster still. It has been interpreted in the SM that this means that distant objects are rushing away from us at faster and faster speeds, that the universe is expanding at greater and greater speeds.

I'm sorry to appear stupid but looking at this data I see a universe that was expanding many millions of years ago and had slowed considerably by a million years ago and by now has slowed to almost a stop or even a stop.

What is it that SM practitioners know that I don't know?

[webolife]

What they DON'T know is the question... how to see their way out of a cardboard BB-Box.

[Zyxzevn]

There are some forum posts that might be interesting for you:

How does the non-doppler redshift work?

Halton Arp - Intrinsic Redshift Lecture

[url=http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... Discussion about relativity[/url]


To answer your question, there are observations that show that not all redshift is due to doppler redshift.
The redshift caused by hot sparse plasma has been confirmed by experiments.
These observations are supported by the EU theory, but "ignored" by mainstream science.
This is a sad situation.

Note that historically people thought that the space between cosmological objects is completely empty. And
for that reason they needed a theory that could cause a redshift with just empty space.

From observations it even appears that many of the redshifts that we see in the universe
are caused by sparse plasma, which means that
the "inflation" or "expansion" of the universe is simply a mirage.

[Michael Mozina]

What is it that SM practitioners know that I don't know?

I wonder if either of you know that Hubble himself rejected the claim that photon redshift was related to expansion?

http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/ ... ress-85962

I think the most deceitful statement that is constantly misused in astronomy today is the claim that "Hubble demonstrated that the universe is expanding". Hubble actually disagreed with that statement. He preferred a static universe theory to explain that phenomenon.

[martinrlaw]

I think the most deceitful statement that is constantly misused in astronomy today is the claim that "Hubble demonstrated that the universe is expanding". Hubble actually disagreed with that statement. He preferred a static universe theory to explain that phenomenon.
Michael Mozina

I'm so glad you said this Michael, it just goes to show that the SM espousers don't even listen to the people who's evidence they quote.

Martin

[Michael Mozina]

I think the most deceitful statement that is constantly misused in astronomy today is the claim that "Hubble demonstrated that the universe is expanding". Hubble actually disagreed with that statement. He preferred a static universe theory to explain that phenomenon.
Michael Mozina

I'm so glad you said this Michael, it just goes to show that the SM espousers don't even listen to the people who's evidence they quote.

Martin

The dishonesty of the mainstream knows no bounds actually. They misuse Hubble's work to claim it supports expansion, even though Hubble himself rejected expansion as a cause of photon redshift. They misuse Alfven's MHD theory theory too by promoting a concept that Alfven called "pseudoscience" and that he made obsolete in with his double layer paper. They use a variation of "blunder" (that what Einstein called it) theory rather than GR theory, but they constantly try to ride the coattails of GR theory by passing it off as "GR theory" even after stuffing pure supernatural magic into the formulas.

There's nothing intellectually honest about the way the mainstream misrepresents scientific history. They kludge it to suit themselves, and they blatantly misrepresent the opinions of the people who's work their claims up based upon. They're incredibly unethical in the way they even present the facts.