First, I am truly grateful for the responses, I am falling way behind keeping up. I will also try to keep my posts shorter. I have looked at other posts, including my own and if they are long I tend not to read them.

This post addresses the issue of the appearace of galaxies in the past. If they were smaller in the past, then they should look different.

“Would that not mean that a galaxy, say, 2 billion light yrs away would be very different looking in structure than a nearby galaxy since the increased mass and gravity would cause it to have a different shape/form? (Triangle man)

Yes, there would be measurable differences in the appearance of galaxies in the past.
1. They should produce more energy. This is evidenced by the energy output of quasars. (Also I predict that the rate supernovas per galaxy will be shown to be greater the further away the galaxy is )
2. There should be more active collisions between galaxies
3. Their apparent size should be affected.

The third point will need some explaining. Lets say we have two galaxies with the same size. If parallel beams of light were sent from the edge of one galaxy to the other, the expansion of space would spread out the path of the beams. If galaxies do not expand with the expansion of space (the current popular model) then the image of the distant galaxy will appear bigger than it should be. In fact, theoretically the apparent image size should get bigger at a faster rate than the amount the image should appear to get smaller when the galaxy is very far away. (This information I got from “An introduction to Modern Astrophysics” by B. Carroll and D. Ostlie which includes a curve is plotted by Gurvits, Ap J 425, 1994. )

In my theory, the two galaxies, if similar massed, were both smaller in the past, and as the image expands, the two galaxies expand, maintaining proportional size. The only size change that should be observed is from parallax due to distance.

Unfortunately neither model conforms to observation. When the angular size of radio galaxies, which are kin to quasars, is plotted verses distance, the observed size of radio galaxies at high red shifts is fairly flat.

The reason for the discrepancy is that Astronomers incorrectly assume that the red shift is entirely cosmological. If all quasars have a cosmic red shift of about 2 (z) and any variation from 2 is due to proper motion (real motion towards us or away from us) then the image size dilemma would be resolved.

Yours

snowflake