John Kierein, back in the 1980's, made a very interesting presentation looking at red shift and gravity. What's strange is that this talk is still relevant today. Cosmologists still refuse to deal with the problems that arise if red shift does not tell the whole story in regard to measuring distances across space. This is a big issue, because if they're wrong about this, then they're wrong about so much more.
So, what is Red Shift
"If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'. The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us". (Electric Cosmos)
Halton Arp had, by the time of Kierein's presentation, already pointed out to his fellow cosmologists that there was a significant problem with using red shift to measure the recessional velocity of stella objects. Arp made clear in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are 'coincidentally aligned'. However, there are numerous examples of such 'coincidentally aligned' objects.
Hubble, the father of the redshift velocity-distance relation (1929), remarked in 1947 that better data may indicate that, “redshifts may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the current speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination".
If red shift is not the yard-stick the cosmologists think it is, the implications are vast. It would call in to doubt the following:
- The age of the universe
- The nature of its origin (big bang?)
- Whether it's actually expanding or is in fact static
- The existence of dark matter, dark energy, black holes (all of which are based on mathematics drawn from the assumptions prescribed by the high priests of cosmology, and are really just required energy accounting entries due to an energy deficit based on current assumptions)
- The nature of gravity and whether other forces are at work (electro-magnetism anyone? charge separation, plasma, hint hint)
Anyway, if you can forgive the amateurish nature of the presentation (this was made pre-YouTube before we all turned pro), this is a great introduction to the idea that all might not be so settled in the realms of "settled science", and that there's a little too much dictum in the church of cosmology and not enough genuine scientific enquiry.
Here's John Kierein and his jumper: Part 1 (links to Parts 2 - 6 are below)