5 Alternative Explanations for the Redshift we Observe

There is mounting evidence that the redshift that is observed for most celestial objects in our Universe may not be due to recessional velocity. In this episode we examine what redshift is and 5 alternative explanation which cast doubt on the assumption that redshift is due only to recessional velocity.

Wolf Effect Papers:

Plasma Red-shift papers:

Follow me on:

Support me on:
#electricuniverse #plasmauniverse #seethepattern

[tunahelpa]

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.

[eulex]

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.

[GamesBond.]

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.

[DLees]

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

[kennethsayce]

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

[oGrasshoppero]

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.

[GamesBond.]

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.

[baraskparas]

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

[pedrosura]

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.

[StevenLeMieux]

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👌

[chrisoakey]

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.

[linz]

We're discussed many holographic redshift and blueshift cases in experiment to extract high-energy includes pulsar rings. While when time pulsar matrix has shifts, higher dimension gravito-magnetic doesn't have redshift change.

[rd]

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.

[andreylebedenko]

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.

[alexei]

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

[SolidSiren]

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.

[tbyzer]

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.

[GamesBond.]

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.

[muntee]

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.

[SteamPunkPhysics]

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.