See belowYour question 1 asks my views of mainstream cosmological redshift. Doppler and gravitational redshift are independent of each other. They are two different causes of frequency shift of light. Doppler redshifts are properly observed in nearby star motions as they approach or depart from us in their cycles. There would be a somewhat equal number of redshift and blueshift observations of these local motions. I think local frequency shifts of this type are naturally more observable than are distant cyclical motions. I believe the universe is static. It retains its equilibrium via relative cyclical/orbital motions of everything. This is the same solution Newton found for equilibrium of motions within the solar system. Therefore there is no overall application of motion away from any particular observer. Doppler does not apply in deep space. There are no other causes of redshift that I suggest for inclusion as spatial causes of redshift.

Your question 2 asks to further understand particles (photons) within waves. This has never been easy to relate to. For my visualizations of the process I specify a wave peak in a sin type of wave to be the particle. As the wave departs the source it diminishes in intensity by spreading out primarily in the direction perpendicular to the up and down waves. This is not intended to influence others view point, it’s just that if photons have particle nature we need to picture it some way. With this in mind, changes in the separation of photons are stretching (or squeezing) of the wave to change the displacement from one peak to the next. Then to determine changes in the velocity one would like to measure the time taken by a particular wave peak, most logically the first one.

Your question 3 first asks about testing. The problem here is that we are dealing with long distances and other limiting concepts. In response I will try to suggest tests even though they may be impossible to do. Perhaps the best chance is an extension of the eot-wash test. I say that blue shift of incoming light is velocity change exceeding separation change. But the separation change, however small must be there. Maybe by some measure of the redshift change one could find that the change is less as the light comes in and blue shifts than it is as the light goes out and red shifts. The separation change diminishes the incoming blue shift and enhances the outgoing red shift. It seems from the Schwatrzchild gravity redshift formula that some investigation of redshift at three different distances should have been done. Can we do or have we done anything like that? Another idea is that the light from quasars might travel inbound slower than velocity C. My system does not specifically stand on that result. Can we test that.

Your question 3c sort of asks what’s wrong with Doppler spatial redshift. I think Doppler was determined to be the cause of distant redshifts for various reasons. For one, Doppler was a current concept used for relativity that everyone could relate to via the train whistle frequency shift. The alternative idea at the time was tired light into which gravitational redshift was grouped. That took away the real focus on gravity. Also the Schwartzchild formula seems to require gravitational redshift to decrease with distance.

So, first of all gravitational redshift was overlooked. My original rejection of the expanding universe is that it violates the functioning of gravity. I was happy to find observational support for rejecting Doppler redshift in Halton Arp’s findings of the location of quasars. I think his findings require a redshift dependent upon distance and a redshift dependent on properties of the source which are logically the mass. It turns out gravity ideally provides redshift that varies with both these factors. For what it’s worth there seems to be a growing set of issues that reject the big bang, notably 10 and then 30 issues presented by Tom VanFlandern at Meta Research.

Finally, the last statement you made reference to is unrelated to thread 1.

Once again, it seems communication is being impeded by the absence of mutual understanding of key terms.

Let's start with a summary of the standard meaning of a set of key terms.

In modern astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, the observed redshifts of objects are attributed to some combination of three different mechanisms:

- relative motion along the line of sight; this is the classical "Doppler effect", and dominates the observed redshifts of objects within the Local Group of galaxies, whether they be the Moon, the Cassini spacecraft, Barnard's star, the star S2 near SgrA*, hot shocked gas in supernova remnants in our Milky Way (and the Magellanic Clouds, M33 (etc)), or CO molecules in M31 (and much more). It is also an important component in the line spectrum of all galaxies, arising from rotation (e.g. in spirals), integrated motion (e.g. in elliptical galaxies; line broadening in this case), or relative motion within galaxy groups or clusters. And so on. In the case of galaxies within groups and clusters, the relative motions of the galaxies within those groups and clusters is (sometimes, often) called 'peculiar redshift', to distinguish it from the cosmological redshift (see below).

- gravitational redshift; this is a quite minor component and is observed only in a small number of highly dense objects, such as white dwarfs, and accretion disks around (SM)BHs (supermassive black holes). The physics underlying this kind of redshift is that described by GR, and tested to very high precision in a series of 'lab' experiments that date back nearly half a century now.

- cosmological redshift, or 'the expansion of space'. Like the previous kind of redshift, the underlying physics is also GR ... but applied to the whole universe this time. Historically and observationally this is 'the Hubble relation(ship)' - an almost linear relationship between the observed (integrated, central) redshift of galaxies and their distances; the constant (slope of the line) is H₀, the Hubble constant, the 'present' value of the (local) rate of expansion of the universe.

Your re-statement of the ATM idea being presented here (in post #56) introduces the term 'spatial redshift'. From the context it seems this is a term of critical importance to your idea. However, it is not defined. Further, it is not a standard term used in modern astrophysics or cosmology.

Can you please provide a clear, detailed definition of 'spatial redshift'?

In the part of your post that I quote above, and elsewhere, you use the term 'gravitational redshift'. From the context of your uses of that term, it seems (to me) that this is at least somewhat different from the standard, textbook physics term; it seems to have a meaning something like 'the redshift that arises from a mechanism that is called 'gravitation' in the ATM idea presented in this thread.'. However, as this term is used in close proximity to another term (Doppler redshift), which term does seem to be used with its normal, textbook meaning, I can't be sure.

Can you clarify please?

Specifically, please state - as clearly and unambiguously as you can - just which terms you intend to use with the standard, textbook definitions, and which have definitions that are peculiar to the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread.I understand very little of this.

However, it seems that your idea of the nature of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and of photons is at least significantly different than either classical electromagnetism or quantum theory.

Within the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread, to what extent do you (exclusively) use either classical electromagnetism or the quantum nature of 'light' ('photons')?

To what extent does your ATM idea require (entirely) new physics wrt EMR or photons?I'm confused.

On the one hand, you have declared that the ATM idea you are presenting in this thread has been developed in a logical fashion only, and, specifically, "[n]o formula is available for summing up the ongoing influence and realizing that gravitational redshift is a function of distance."

If we have neither formulae nor OOM (order of magnitude) estimates, then surely we have no way of assessing how long 'long distances' are? I mean, they could be as long as 10¹⁰⁰ Mpc, or as short as 1 nm!

Similarly 'small' could be within the scope of 17th century physics lab instruments to measure, or 10¹⁰⁰ times smaller than the best we can do today!

The same with 'slower'.

And so on.

But perhaps I'm missing something ... perhaps, even with just logic alone it might be possible to test your ATM idea?Note that the logic of this part of your response seems to be: "the standard explanation is wrong, THEREFORE my idea MUST be right!"

As I'm sure you did not intend to use such logic, I will ignore this part and focus on the next part.I want to be crystal clear on this: are you prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to, "Halton Arp’s findings of the location of quasars"?

Note, for avoidance of doubt, that these so-called findings are most certainly against the mainstream! Putting them on the table thus means they are within the scope of the BAUT rules and policies on ATM ideas.I want to be crystal clear on this: are you prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to, "10 and then 30 issues presented by Tom VanFlandern at Meta Research"?

Note, for avoidance of doubt, that these so-called issues are most certainly against the mainstream! Putting them on the table thus means they are within the scope of the BAUT rules and policies on ATM ideas.Thanks for the clarification; let's have no more mention of it in this thread, shall we?

I’m sorry again about the terminology. My views of redshift are 1. I accept Doppler redshifts as you described including peculiar redshift. 2. The standard definition given for gravitational redshift iis limited to the shift at the surface and is not in dispute at that portion. 3. The cosmological redshift I reject and replace with the continuation of gravitational redshift throughout the transmission of the light. The gravitational effect is supplied by both the source and the observer. My use of the term spatial redshift was probably extraneous.

My picture of light waves was to answer your question. It is my personal perspective, not meant for others to follow nor to challenge anything about classical or quantum nature of light.

In the quote about testing I mentioned the Eot-Wash test by mistake instead of the Pound Rebka test. That would obviously cause confusion. Beyond that I am not sure what you are suggesting by discussing limiting situations. Regarding no formula being available, any such distance gravitational formula should approximate the cosmological formula. That would rely on initial observations and include the Hubble constant derived from them.

My answer to question 3c should have referred to what’s wrong with cosmological redshift. You have misinterpreted my primary answer, that it violates gravity. I did not intend that to refer to gravity affecting redshift. The expanding universe violates gravity between masses. There is no example of an explosion, bang etc continuing to increase its velocity of escape after the initial event. Gravitational ‘attraction’ slows the escape/expansion unless overcome by some accelerating motive force contained within the escaping particles. I understand the first work around is to add new space. But gravity still functions. Then the work around is to have gravity appear later on. Personally I just don’t believe in a universe that is significantly different than now where we have to make numerous hypothetical alterations to arrive at now. My approach to using logic is to find a solution that mostly matches current knowledge and doesn’t require new concepts, thus simplifying understanding.

Regarding Halton Arp’s ideas, I don’t need them and nor know them well enough to defend them. I can still be happy that they support my ideas. I don’t relate to nor rely upon the 10 then 30 reject ideas.

Paul I agree with your idea's on the redshift question and being related to gravity not doppler effect. I believe that too many people try to make the universe a very complex mystifing exciting topic that only highly informed people can understand when in reality it is very interesting although somewhat dull. The laws of physics are the same everywhere, the only difference is that the extents are greater outside our planet. I also reject the expanding space and or universe idea as this requires an explanation as to where the "edge" is which can never be explained, as well as what lies beyond the edge! The rapid expansion theory is another boon doggle which is becoming more popular as no one was ever able to answer the question as to where the matter that is in the universe came from, what caused the "big Bang", how the matter could exceed the speed of light, after a few hours ?? what slowed down the matter down and now what is speeding it back up again. Big wad of confusion not Big Bang. Now we have the rapid expansion theroy Possibly should be called the "Big Bust" theory as there is no explanation as to how all the mass in the universe could accumulate in one central place without the cumulative gravitational field resulting in an implosion, where is this theoretical central point, how can matter exceed the speed of light, why does'nt inertia continue the movement of the matter in a straight line at a constant speed and all tha same unanswered questions as the "Big Bang" theory other than the big exptosion? BIG MYSTERY
The straight forward approach consistent with the laws of physics even though less exciting is a great deal more logical! I liked your post.

Reply followsI really appreciate your support David. I think the growing list of amendments to portions of big bang theory is gradually increasing the number of nonbelievers. You listed many problems with it and there are many others. The big bang however remains as the mainstream with heavy academic influence and press support. Those who object have yet to agree on one alternative theory. There are a number out there.

David Clark, as you're relatively new to BAUT, you may not have had time to come up to speed on what this ATM section is and how it operates, so here's a quick intro.

The BAUT rules do a pretty good job of framing the scope:There's also New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section, announced in March this year.

In light of this, may I ask you to expand upon your post please?

In particular, are you declaring that you are willing and able to answer direct, pertinent questions about the ATM (against the mainstream) ideas which paul schroeder has presented in this thread?

Are you presenting your own ATM ideas (that you are willing to address challenges to)?

FWIW (for what it's worth), emotions and sentiments similar to those in the post of yours I am quoting here are quite common. However, in my experience, the number of BAUT members who have presented an ATM idea and successfully defended it against even the mildest of challenges is exceedingly small. And by 'successfully' I mean in terms of the standards of modern science, the human endeavour which brought you the PC and internet you use to post to this forum (among many other things).

So, in some logical sense, I find it curious that you seem to be willing to trash several centuries of modern science (and essentially declare all of modern medicine, for example, logically no different than snake oil) for the sake of some ill-defined sense of discomfort about modern astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

But maybe I misunderstood your post.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Would you please answer my three questions again, avoiding the confusions over definitions etc?

Here they are, again:
------------------- Question 1 ------------------------
1) You state two possible ('may be caused by') causes of the observed redshifts of astronomical objects ('changes in the separation of photons' and 'changes in the velocity of the light stream').

1a) To what extent do the 'spatial redshifts' you refer to overlap with the mainstream 'cosmological redshift'?

1b) In particular, to what degree are the 'gravitational redshifts' and 'peculiar redshifts' (essentially Doppler shifts due to relative line of sight motion) of mainstream astrophysics and cosmology independent of 'spatial redshift'?

1c) What, if any, are the other causes of 'spatial redshift', in your ATM idea?

------------------- Question 2 ------------------------
2) You state two possible ('may be caused by') causes of the observed redshifts of astronomical objects ('changes in the separation of photons' and 'changes in the velocity of the light stream').

2a) What does 'changes in the separation of photons' mean? Please expand by giving a more detailed definition (for the components of this idea that are non-mainstream) and/or by referring to a standard physics textbook or other standard material (for the components of this idea that are mainstream).

2b) What does 'changes in the velocity of the light stream' mean? Please expand by giving a more detailed definition (for the components of this idea that are non-mainstream) and/or by referring to a standard physics textbook or other standard material (for the components of this idea that are mainstream).

------------------- Question 3 ------------------------
3) You state "Consideration of which factor prevails in various situations supports the gravitational idea." My question relates to the scope within which you presented this ATM idea and the extent to which it can be tested. You also state "No formula is available for summing up the ongoing influence and realizing that gravitational redshift is a function of distance." This seems to unambiguously exclude any possible testing.

3a) Given that you have declared your ATM idea to be solely 'logical' (at least in so far as this thread is concerned), how - in principle - can any '[c]onsideration' (whether of factors that may, or may not, prevail, or not) 'support' this 'gravitational idea'? Note that this is a question about the methods by which your idea can be tested, not about the idea itself.

3b) In particular, what is the role of quantitative (astronomical) observation in testing your assertion? Again, note that this is a question about the methods by which your idea can be tested, not about the idea itself.

<< For avoidance of doubt: 3a) and 3b) seek to determine the extent to which your idea can be considered science at all, in the sense that modern physics and astronomy (etc) are sciences >>

3c) What considerations, factors, and situations are the most compelling with respect to supporting your ATM gravitational idea? Please answer by giving at least one, and include only those you are prepared to answer questions on (and address challenges to).

------------------- End of questions ------------------------

Note that I think 1a) and 1b) will now be very straight-forward to answer (but, in light of the numerous mis-communications in this, and other, threads, I'd appreciate you writing a clear, unambiguous response, that I and other BAUT members may refer to as definitive in terms of questions and challenges); 2a) and 2b) may require you to re-state the 'upstream' part of your earlier post; and that all three Q3s are (it seems to me) now quite without answers.

Mr Nereid I'm sorry if something I wrote injured someone's feelings. Old age is a shipwreck and since I will never be 18 again the learning curve is extended.

David Clark, if I may respond by saying that my post, to which you responded, was not intended to convey any injured feelings (of mine anyway), but:
a) to explain what this section of BAUT is about,
b) to comment on what I saw as a deep misconception of the nature of science (i.e. that understanding of how the universe works can be decided largely, or principally, by one's feelings or beliefs, not a painstaking cycling through theory formation and development and testing by observation and experiment), and
c) to ask you if you intended to answer questions on, and address challenges to, the ATM ideas presented in this thread, as presented.

To repeat: are you declaring that you are willing and able to answer direct, pertinent questions about the ATM (against the mainstream) ideas which paul schroeder has presented in this thread?

In terms of how this ATM section works, I think this question is the only thing of pertinence (not least because this thread will be closed automatically in a day or so!)

PS you may wish to research the etymology of 'Nereid'

response belowMy ATM idea is that there are 2 causes of redshift throughout space. The first is Doppler redshift which adheres to the standard definition of Doppler redshift and includes peculiar redshifts. The second cause of redshift is gravitation. Currently gravitational redshift is determined only at mass surfaces. There is no consideration of ongoing gravitational redshift across space. I reject cosmological redshift as the distance related redshift and replace it with the continuation of gravitational redshift across space.

Redshift is a change of frequency of the radiation as observed in some manner by the observer. Frequency is a measure of the time it takes for a specific part of the radiation wave to reoccur. For convenience that part can be referred to as the photon. As repetitive waves pass the observation point, the frequency of observation of photons is determined by the velocity of the beam and the length of the waves within the beam. A variation of either the wave length or of the velocity of the beam causes a frequency variation.

The velocity of light is probably impossible to measure except for timing the original arrival of a beam from a distance. Therefore, neither cosmological nor gravitational redshift can specifically distinguish between velocity change and wavelength change by considering frequency change. To distinguish the two concepts, cosmological redshift is not velocity change but is a stretching of the wave by motion away. The motion is assigned to account for redshift increasing with distance in an ongoing pattern.

My ATM idea about gravitational redshift is that it consists of 2 parts. The velocity of light is affected by gravity and the individual wave lengths are affected by gravity. The gravitation of the source slows the departing beam and to a lesser extent gradually increases the separation of adjacent photons by ‘attracting’ the closer second one more then the first one. Since slowing exceeds separating, the maximum redshift should occur half way to the observer. This assumes that the observer occupies or is near a mass similar to the source. The second half of the transmission includes velocity increase due to the attraction of the observer thus offsetting the original velocity loss. The observer gravity also pulls more on the first photon of a pair than on the second so the separation continues to increase with time. The resultant redshift to the observer is the gravitational stretching of the wavelength over the entire distance.

The difference between cosmological redshift and gravitational distance redshift would be observable if the redshift could be observed at a half way point. Gravitational redshift would exceed that seen by the final observer while cosmological redshift would be less than the final observer sees. It is also important to distinguish gravitational distance redshift from gravitational redshift as currently defined. The redshift caused by a source should be found to increase with distance from the source, devoid of other pertinent gravitation. Measuring at 3 distances should show this increasing redshift.

Finally the redshift caused by stretched wave may be testable. The Pound Rebka test shows a blue shift of light approaching higher gravitation and a red shift of light departing to lesser gravitation. In my view of gravitational redshift I suggest the major part of the shifts are due to changes in the velocity of the beam. If it were only a velocity redshift, the change in wave length from an elevated source to the ground and then back up should be equal. The part that doesn’t offset would be the stretching of the wave which would occur in both directions. Therefore the amount of redshift should exceed the amount of blue shift. Unfortunately the amount of difference would be very small. Determining that amount of redshift might require applying the Hubble constant across the small distance of the test.

I hope this covers everything except 3c which I think I answered last post.

All I am declaring is that I agree with Mr.Schroeder's view on the red shift issue and have never been able to get a CLEAR answer to the other concerns I mentioned. Other than that i'm confused. You appear to be an authority on the universe and bautforum so possibly you can direct me to the proper place to go in order to get direct clear answers to the issues I stated. Should I go to Q&A and if so, what thread? I would appreciate your advice.