That’s a problem since you agree to a red/blue shift based on relative movement and you also add another interference redshift. How to determine what is happening?
Got a link to that quasar?
Unfortunately your idea of reasoning is merely whatever the king said.
You couldn’t even begin to support their theories or have much idea as to why they really think them.
Philosophy is for thinking people, not worshipful followers.
Shoot, I guess I read Measuring Eternity for nothing, and it doesn’t really matter that I understand that as matter approaches absolute zero, atoms begin to condense into each other (i.e. Bose-Einstein condensates, which are no longer theoretical), that red dwarfs will be the last stars to die out (as they take the longest to consume their fuel), and that with nothing to generate heat in the universe, contraction will inevitably begin…
You didn’t explain why they continue to redshift further.
Stat, you seem to have a really and unusually hard time understanding the things that I say such as to often misunderstand them to mean something else.
What I have proposed is simply that anything at such extreme distances will display a red-shift, regardless of whether it is moving or not. Thus as long as it is at such extreme distance, it will always display a red-shift with only the exception that if it is moving toward the observer, it might be moving fast enough to over compensate for the red-shift and appear either normal or even blue-shifted.
I have no idea if you are going to understand what I just said, because I can’t see why you didn’t understand that in the first place. Perhaps you really mean something other than what I am reading from what you are saying. But your argument seems out of place.
Everything you read will be for nothing.
You place your entire soul into the hands of others to dictate.
Reasoning and logic means nothing to you other than “accept what the elite have said else you are a moron, paranoid dissonant”.
Philosophy is for people who actually do their own reasoning.
What? Because I disagree with you?
Because you do not express reasoning, only reference to authority of one type or another and end it there.
“Blind Faith”.
Can you explain why anything in what I said is wrong?
I haven’t been looking for things you might be wrong about.
But you did express a serious lack of understanding of issues concerning conspiracies.
But if your intent is merely to not be wrong, I suggest simply not speaking.
Actually, it seems to be you who isn’t understanding. When I say the most distant bodies continue to redshift, I don’t mean that the redshift persists as it is; I mean they redshift further. So, in other words, they keep redshifting more and more over time. By your theory, the redshift would be somewhat variable, not moving in one direction over time. Does that make sense?
Ah, so this is to insult me because of a grudge? I do like that line about “simply not speaking,” though.
Do you mean to say that their red-shifting is increasing over time?
I don’t see how anyone could have measured that, but do you have some reference for it?
And no, I couldn’t make sense of the rest.
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean, and that’s all you really needed to make sense of. They measure it by observing that the bodies move more and more toward the red end of the spectrum. From what I understand, a redshift is gradated. Or is it that all redshifting bodies turn only one shade of red?
If the red-shifting is increasing, that would indicate that the body is accelerating (by their theory). I have never heard of that.
If they somehow see that (and I still can’t imagine them measuring such a thing), by my theory, it would indicate that the object has moved into a more dense region of space or that a more dense mass field has moved between the body and the observer. It would have to be a very large amount of mass change (as in several galaxies worth of mass differential) in order to make any measurable red-shift change.
That’s exactly what the theory says, no? The universe is expanding at increasing speed.
[/quote]
But then you’d be tasked to show why the redshift is moving in only one direction over time. The bodies would all be continually moving into more and more dense regions of space or more mass is moving between us, but never less dense regions or less mass between us. And if we can’t find enough mass to justify a change in gradation, you’d be forced to admit the bodies are moving away.
Well, I guess you are right, they are saying that, but their explanation (from Wiki) is pure nonsense;
I more suspect that they saw something and then presumed expansion and tried to find a way to fit it into their prior misunderstanding (otherwise known as superstition in order to make sense of what they couldn’t understand. Superimposing phantom entities to stitch a theory together).
Two things;
- I don’t disallow bodies to be moving. I am talking about the entire universe expanding, not that no bodies are moving at all.
- Have they seen any cases where there is decreasing red-shifting? If they saw that, they would probably dismiss it as merely a body changing directions due to a gravitation influence. And why didn’t they assume that with the increase?
I can totally explain their “dark matter/energy”. They invented that notion merely to make their equations work out, “it has to be there, else our theories don’t work.” Actually RM’s Affectance Ontology completely understands what they are now calling dark matter. It is merely a higher density affectance field or what they would consider a mass field wherein particles can’t quite form, but it still has an accumulative gravitation effect (not “vacuum” 
).
An increase in the dark matter would cause an increase in red-shifting, so if it is actually consistent that the red-shifting is increasing, my theory would be that the dark matter between these bodies is increasing. But again, I do not discount motion of the bodies. My claim is that there is another explanation that they are ignoring. The conclusion that the universe is expanding is overly presumptuous… and has been for a long time.
There is no reason why this phenomenon, assuming it is empirically provable, would cause red rather than blue shift. It rests on the assumption that interference from mass/gravity fields would only delay the peak (or at least the rear) of the wave and not the front. If the front were delayed, the resulting “bunching up” of wavelength would of course cause blue shift.
A more plausible explanation of red shift rather than blue shift, without matter in the universe travelling away from the former locus of the original singularity, would be that (assuming interference from mass/gravity fields) these field strengths increase the further they are away from an observer.
Either that or mass/gravity field intensity increases uniformly over time across the universe, such that light experiences increased drag as time elapses, causing the rear of the wavelength to become more delayed relative to its front as it travels.
I was too late with my edit. I meant moving away.
I’m not sure. But we are talking about more than one distant object redshifting here. If we saw a majority redshifting, then one blueshifting, we’d probably be right to assume that one blueshifted body is moving a different direction.
I am actually a little skeptical of dark matter myself, but I admittedly only have a cursory understanding of it.
I’d think Occam’s Razor would lead us to favor the expansion theory. I don’t doubt that there are other possible explanations. I just doubt that there are better ones based on the evidence we have.
Also, I mentioned this briefly before, but I think some distant bodies are becoming generally fainter as well. That seems to suggest expansion.
It isn’t an assumption. There is a reason for only the rear to be delayed. The positive and negative halves of the wave are not treated equally. But it is still merely a theory, not a logical proof just yet.
I don’t see that as “more plausible”. Why would a field strength care where the observer was?
Or are you saying that it is just coincidence that the field strength happens to be greater out there somewhere?
I would think the opposite to be more likely.
But in reality, it wouldn’t matter because if the light is traveling either into or out of a stronger field, half of each wave will be affected more than the other. And that field could be merely a change in electric field with or without an increase in the mass field. But assuming an average neutral electric field, there would be no net change in wavelength. But even with an average neutral changing of the mass field, the wavelength would still be only increased, never decreased.
That is what I was saying about the dark matter/energy increasing. If the dark matter is increasing, for whatever reason, there would be the appearance of acceleration. But you’re right in that merely the increasing alone would add to a red-shift effect even if there had been none prior.
And there is a reason for such an increase.
If rather than the universe expanding, the particles that make up the visible universe are disintegrating, there would be an appearance of expansion as the particles got further and further away relative to their own size. The location of each particle could remain the same, but there would be an appearance of expanding motion and that appearance would not have a center. Anywhere the observer stood, he would experience the same observation of apparent expansion from himself.
The red-shift effect would then be due to the relative amount of shrinking that occurred over a billion years because the photon intensity doesn’t reduce. By the time the light finally got to you, the wavelength of the light would be longer relative to your fractionally smaller size.
But where is the disintegrating matter going to? It is merely becoming less concentrated and dispersing into the surrounding area as higher field density, increasing dark matter/energy.
Extending from that speculation would be that when and if the dark matter became too dense, new particles would form and begin to establish new gravitation centers yielding new formation of stars, planets, and galaxies.