Originally Posted by paul schroeder

The Universe is Otherwise
Part 1 – Red Shift

I have an all encompassing theory of the universe. This particular theory requires no concepts beyond gravity, pushing type gravity particles, and an in depth analysis of the contributions of spins (rotation and revolution). This is one part. I will submit more parts if there is interest. The theory, also called External Gravitation, addresses the major portions of our knowledge. Part one replaces the big bang, expanding universe theory. My overall theory is not dependent upon this solution, but does dispute the expanding universe.. While it is impossible to disprove existing theory, a replacement can fall back on Occam’s razor which suggests that ‘simplicity is best’. Occam’s razor is frequently referenced for theory support, and here it helps in understanding the universe by eliminating the unwieldy load of virtual physical ideas that science has been creating to adjust existing theories.

Retracing Big Bang Logic

The big bang at some initial time is an irrefutable consequence of a system in which all components are continually moving away from each other at speeds which increase with distance. Concepts which conflict with the big bang such as gravity, infinite space, speed limits, and Halton Arp’s findings about the location of Quasars are overcome by legions of followers amending the theory with work arounds and inventing concepts. These concepts include curved space, higher dimensions of space itself, dark energy, strange particles, membranes, time warp, MOND, and singularities. Taken together these concepts suggest a logic flaw in expansion theory, and together with Halton Arp’s findings, cry out for action.

To seek a logic flaw in the big bang, review its foundation. Edwin Hubble first identified redshift of light from distant bodies and subsequently found that the amount of shift increased with the distance, as mostly determined by parallax. An overview of the times suggests that the Doppler shift, recently applied to train whistle frequencies in promoting relativity theory, was on everyone’s mind. That theory overcame the competing ‘tired light’ theory of Edwin Zwick.

Other causes for redshift have subsequently been suggested. But other than Doppler, the only ‘proven’ cause of redshift is gravity. This then is the alternative to Doppler for consideration. Gravitational red shift is misunderstood. Some even consider it a form of ‘tired light’ which it isn’t. Gravitational red shift effects in space, as applied to neutron stars and black holes, are assumed to occur strictly at the source, for example within a Schwarzschild radius. Distance plays no part. That is a big mistake! Consider that satellites attraction by earth diminishes with distance. Earth’s gravitation extends to the moon and beyond. The more distant a planet, the less it is affected by the sun. Galaxies are gravitationally connected. Thus, distance matters when considering gravity and especially if summing up its effects.

I have been told that suggesting the gravity effect as a source of redshift is a form of the tired light view. Tired light was proposed by Zwicky in 1929 as the alternative to Hubble and competed for acceptance for a while. The following paragraph from WIKI is a huge error by Zwicky himself as he refutes gravitational potential as a tired light source. The second statement makes no sense and ignores the idea of an ongoing shift of spectral lines with distance. Its nonsense that spectral shift must end at the galaxy boundary.
• Gravitational potential:
"One might expect a shift of spectral lines due to the difference of the static gravitational potential at different distances from the center of a galaxy. This effect, of course, has no relation to the distance of the observed galaxy from our own system and, therefore, cannot provide any explanation of the phenomenon discussed in this paper."


Consider that gravity is an effect radiated by a mass. Brightness of light is another radiated effect. Just as light reaches us from distant masses, so must gravity. Therefore, gravity acts continually over time. Light beams from a distant mass are continually affected by gravity throughout their transmission. The red shift will gradually increase with distance, even though local gravitation provides a very large component initially.

The components of gravitational redshift are the mass of the source and the distance. Thus, a Quasar and its adjacent galaxy can provide different shifts having different masses even though their distance is the same. Meanwhile two similar stars or two similar galaxies can transmit to us different redshifts due to differing distances.

Mass depends on the spin of component particles. Quasars, which have been defined by Halton Arp’s as being younger, are thus much more actively spinning mass. Arp separates out an intrinsic portion of redshift which he assigns to youth. This intrinsic portion can here be understood as resulting from the Quasar being more massive than the galaxy.

I don’t believe the measuring or summing of gravitation effects on wave lengths over long time periods and long distances has ever been done, probably due to the complexity. How would we determine any gravitational increase of redshift for light as it travels great distances from the source? Solutions would require computers. I have attached an exercise to explain the issue by analogy. It is a simple analogy which if expanded might show that at some distance there will be a nearly linear connection between changes in redshift (wavelength) and distance. While the local gravitation at the source provides the intrinsic and often the major part of the shift, the second effect of gravitation over distance, provides the distance dependent redshift for similar sized bodies, which effect is currently attributed to Doppler.

Red Shift Math Analogy

The speed and distance for light are too large to produce quantifiable measures by time unit when explaining the redshift from gravity. So, I present an analogy using comparable components with much smaller numbers.

Light consists of photon particles. They are separated in sequence by some wave length. Assume 2 particles are departing a massive source, both traveling at what is originally defined as a constant velocity. Being particles, their velocities are both subject to the gravitational pull of their source.

Assume two particles that are at distances of 10 and 11 from the source, so the separation is equivalent to a wave length of 1. Both particles are moving away from the source at an initial speed of 1 distance measure per time period. I investigate a couple of time periods here and maybe someone can computerize the math progression with actual numbers for light wave lengths. There is a gravitational like pull on the particles which is calculated as an inverse square, ie., it slows the velocities by 1/distance squared. We would like to investigate the change in wave length as the distance from the source increases.

After time interval1, the particle at 10 moves a distance of 1 less the gravitational effect of 1/10 squared and arrives at 11-.001 or 10.99. The particle at 11 moves 1 less the gravitational effect of 1/11 squared and arrives at 12-.0082645 or 11.991736. The wave length is now 1.001736.

In the next second particle 1 moves 1 less 1/10.99 squared and arrives at 11.99 – 1/10.99 squared = .0082795 or 11.9817205. The other particle moves 1 less 1/11.991736 squared and arrives at 12.991736- 1/11.991736 squared = .006954 or 12.984782. The wave length is now 12.984782 – 11.9817205 = 1.003062.

The wave length increases with distance as Hubble found for star light. Whether the increases will approximate a 1 for 1 relationship with changes in distance traveled is uncertain, but this 2 step analysis suggests some correlation of wave length change with distance change.

This initial mathematical analysis is only partial as it does not include the gravitational pull from the destination galaxy/sun, our receiving contribution. This pull further separates the particles while restoring the original speed.

The big bang and expanding universe should be replaced by a static, infinite universe whose structure is a consequence of the motion of its gravity particles - see part 2.



Paul Schroeder