Other models easily explain the 'shifting of light' and the establishment dogma that Redshift means a receding object and distant time, is unsupported by the evidence.
Good stuff! Isn’t it amazing that the present day scientism spends so much time and energy avoiding anything that contradicts or doesn’t support the narrative. One might be led into thinking that someone is bankrolling this effort! 😁
Thanks - yes indeed. Seems 'coordinated' to say the least. Cherry picking what they want, ignoring what they don't like, especially mechanical proofs which contradict the narrative.
Excellent summary - many thanks. I have never believed all that nonsense about galaxies accelerating away from us. Nor do I believe in the distance scale or the age of the universe theory as currently spouted as gospel truth all over. These chaps have some gall thinking they understand the universe. It is just a theory boys and girls, just a theory.
Thanks David. Stellar parallax if false would give us far smaller distances between planets, constellations, galaxies. If Arp et al are correct, than we have a far smaller steady state universe, not an endless galloping into eternity.
Yes, all of these ideas and concepts - unproven but surmised - around endless movement, circling and expansion are historically quite new - maybe 80 years old. The standard model by default, has to fall back on such assumptions.
Good stuff! Isn’t it amazing that the present day scientism spends so much time and energy avoiding anything that contradicts or doesn’t support the narrative. One might be led into thinking that someone is bankrolling this effort! 😁
Thanks - yes indeed. Seems 'coordinated' to say the least. Cherry picking what they want, ignoring what they don't like, especially mechanical proofs which contradict the narrative.
Excellent summary - many thanks. I have never believed all that nonsense about galaxies accelerating away from us. Nor do I believe in the distance scale or the age of the universe theory as currently spouted as gospel truth all over. These chaps have some gall thinking they understand the universe. It is just a theory boys and girls, just a theory.
Thanks David. Stellar parallax if false would give us far smaller distances between planets, constellations, galaxies. If Arp et al are correct, than we have a far smaller steady state universe, not an endless galloping into eternity.
"galloping into eternity" - nice turn of phrase
Yes, all of these ideas and concepts - unproven but surmised - around endless movement, circling and expansion are historically quite new - maybe 80 years old. The standard model by default, has to fall back on such assumptions.
This is correct. The issue would be Arp’s argument on element / photon mass and frequency and what ‘red’ actually entails.