The redshift is no expansion and Fritz Zwicky knew it

[Uwe]

Hi everyone,

recently I found an interesting detail in an interview of the famous non-mainstream physicist Burkhard Heim about a correspondence with astronomer Fritz Zwicky. There he says (in my flawed translation):

"... and subsequently I wrote Zwicky. And Zwicky sent me a lamenting letter, that he also knew that this is the case. He even could prove it with photos, but he was not allowed to publish them. There are anomalies in the redshift which indicate, that it cannot be an expansion. But this contradicts the theories of prominent people and this will cause trouble. The photos are in his desk, he wrote.
I was so shocked about that. There I noticed for the first time, what a rude tone was prevailing there."

The correspondence took place at the beginning of the 1960's. The interview with Burkhard Heim in German can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-k9ixRDXV0

Together with Walter Baade, Zwicky developed the neutron star concept, already in the 1930s. He also worked on cataloging galaxies, just like Halton Arp. From these observations the photos obviously came from, that he mentioned. But unlike Arp, Zwicky did not publish them and subsequently kept his position and reputation.

So, this is an important historical detail (I think) about the time, when the expanding-universe theory was developed.

All the best,
Uwe

[JeffreyW]

From what I've read over the years, the quasars are redshifting. They are travelling out of their parent galaxies at high rates of velocity.

The problem was that big bang cosmology took the high redshifting quasars and placed them separate from their parent galaxies. So now they are at extreme distances in big bang cosmology, but actually just coming out of very near-by galaxies in modern astronomy. FYI big bang is no longer modern, it is out of date and all the people I've talked to already know this, but none are going public with it.

[Uwe]

From what I've read over the years, the quasars are redshifting. They are travelling out of their parent galaxies at high rates of velocity.

Yes, that is what Halton Arp found out. But unfortunately, we'll probably never know what was on the pictures in Zwicky's desk.

[Michael Mozina]

Hi everyone,

recently I found an interesting detail in an interview of the famous non-mainstream physicist Burkhard Heim about a correspondence with astronomer Fritz Zwicky. There he says (in my flawed translation):

"... and subsequently I wrote Zwicky. And Zwicky sent me a lamenting letter, that he also knew that this is the case. He even could prove it with photos, but he was not allowed to publish them. There are anomalies in the redshift which indicate, that it cannot be an expansion. But this contradicts the theories of prominent people and this will cause trouble. The photos are in his desk, he wrote.
I was so shocked about that. There I noticed for the first time, what a rude tone was prevailing there."

The correspondence took place at the beginning of the 1960's. The interview with Burkhard Heim in German can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-k9ixRDXV0

Together with Walter Baade, Zwicky developed the neutron star concept, already in the 1930s. He also worked on cataloging galaxies, just like Halton Arp. From these observations the photos obviously came from, that he mentioned. But unlike Arp, Zwicky did not publish them and subsequently kept his position and reputation.

So, this is an important historical detail (I think) about the time, when the expanding-universe theory was developed.

All the best,
Uwe

If you ever get around to asking the mainstream how they eliminated *every* possible type of inelastic scattering as the actual cause of photon redshift from distant objects, they will invariably point you to Zwicky who apparently is the only one who's ever published anything on the topic. Zwicky was trying to sell his *own* tired light theory in that particular paper, and he did "kinda" rule out Compton scattering as the *entire* cause of the phenomenon while selling that tired light concept. How ironic that the mainstream has to cite his work to support their any kind of critique of "tired light" options.

Zwicky, with nothing more than what can only be called primitive technology by today's standards, somehow single-handedly managed to rule out all other potential types of ordinary matter to explain galaxy cluster rotation patterns.

Nevermind the fact that we just found more mass in the form of million degree plasma than all the mass we knew about prior to 2012. Nevermind the fact that we just found that it rotates just like their "dark matter" models would "predict".

Zwicky not only didn't believe in expansion, he wrote and tried to sell his own tired light theory to explain photon redshift from distant objects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

His whole notion of claiming to eliminate inelastic scattering based upon "blurring" is a misnomer IMO. Distant galaxies *are* more blurred than closer galaxies.

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi everyone,

recently I found an interesting detail in an interview of the famous non-mainstream physicist Burkhard Heim about a correspondence with astronomer Fritz Zwicky. There he says (in my flawed translation):

"... and subsequently I wrote Zwicky. And Zwicky sent me a lamenting letter, that he also knew that this is the case. He even could prove it with photos, but he was not allowed to publish them. There are anomalies in the redshift which indicate, that it cannot be an expansion. But this contradicts the theories of prominent people and this will cause trouble. The photos are in his desk, he wrote.
I was so shocked about that. There I noticed for the first time, what a rude tone was prevailing there."

The correspondence took place at the beginning of the 1960's. The interview with Burkhard Heim in German can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-k9ixRDXV0

Together with Walter Baade, Zwicky developed the neutron star concept, already in the 1930s. He also worked on cataloging galaxies, just like Halton Arp. From these observations the photos obviously came from, that he mentioned. But unlike Arp, Zwicky did not publish them and subsequently kept his position and reputation.

So, this is an important historical detail (I think) about the time, when the expanding-universe theory was developed.

All the best,
Uwe

That's because cosmological redshift has nothing to do with expansion, but is the interaction of light with plasma in space.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

They should have given it up years ago when technology increased and the z values began to become too high. Instead they changed it to a magical, expanding, bending, accelerating nothing to keep their beliefs alive.

Since we are discussing charged particles (high energy) claims of scattering is null and void.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

"An analysis of the doubly differential cross section above shows that electrons whose kinetic energy is larger than the rest energy (511 keV) emit photons in forward direction while electrons with a small energy emit photons isotropically."

The problem with their blurring and scattering estimates is that they treat that plasma like dust and gas, not the highly charged medium that it is. Those at extremely high redshift values are blurred consistent with the theory of a non Doppler redshift due to temperature (charge) of the plasma mainly.

[Michael Mozina]

From what I've read over the years, the quasars are redshifting. They are travelling out of their parent galaxies at high rates of velocity.

The problem was that big bang cosmology took the high redshifting quasars and placed them separate from their parent galaxies. So now they are at extreme distances in big bang cosmology, but actually just coming out of very near-by galaxies in modern astronomy. FYI big bang is no longer modern, it is out of date and all the people I've talked to already know this, but none are going public with it.

Even the size of distant quasars pushes their theory past it logical limits. The mainstream keeps having to "invent" new uses for exotic matter with respect to trying to explain supermassive objects in the early universe. On a recent show about quasars I say on TV, they were proposing "dark stars" which could of course overcome all the physical obstacles of using ordinary matter to explain their fast growth process. The more and more that we look back in time, the more the universe and distant galaxies look pretty much the same as they do right now in terms of galaxy "evolution' and overall mass layout:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mas ... g-universe
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mat ... g-universe

I suspect that the Webb telescope will be the straw that breaks the camels back with respect to galaxy evolution claims. I highly doubt that galaxies at the edge of Webb's limit will look any different than they do right now. They will be a bit "blurrier" perhaps, but in terms of size, and shape and mass and such, I highly doubt they'll be much evidence of galaxy "evolution/time".

[willendure]

What about the Shapiro effect? Could that also explain red-shift in a non-expanding universe? It would also seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the BB model.

[Justatruthseeker]

What about the Shapiro effect? Could that also explain red-shift in a non-expanding universe? It would also seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the BB model.

Light isn't affected by gravity. That's another of their Fairie Dust constructs. What they call gravitational Lansing is nothing more than the refraction of light in those plasma halos that surround every galaxy.

So let's assume light is massless. Even in their Fairie Dust theory Mass bends spacetime, then spacetime tells mass how to move. So if light is massless then how is this bent nothing telling light how to move since spacetime only directs the path of objects with mass? Their theory is not consistent with itself, not that needing a consistent theory ever bothered mainstream.

No, we have since the theory of gravitational lending discovered halos of plasma around galaxies with twice the mass of the galaxy itself. It is simply light being refracted as it passes through these plasma halos. As I linked in my post above their already exists a rational explanation for cosmological redshift consistent with what we observe and also consistent with the new density of space we have since discovered was drastically underestimated by mainstream.

What is thought to be occurring in the Shapiro effect is again simply deflection of light through plasma halos, be it the suns halo or the galaxies.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/einstein/appendix2.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/index.html

[willendure]

What about the Shapiro effect? Could that also explain red-shift in a non-expanding universe? It would also seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the BB model.

What is thought to be occurring in the Shapiro effect is again simply deflection of light through plasma halos, be it the suns halo or the galaxies.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/einstein/appendix2.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/index.html

No, because the Shapiro effect falls off with 1/log r. So it manifests way way outside of the halo of plasma immediately around the sun.

The plasma immediately around the sun may account for the "gravitational bending" of light and offers an alternative explanation to that given by the general theory of relativity. The Shapiro effect cannot be explained away so easily.

The other thing I should point out about the Shapiro effect is that it is not a bending of light but a delay in its travel. Again, I can believe light would be bent by refracting as it moves between lower and higher density plasma as may happen when passing near the sun, but this is different to what is going on with the Shapiro effect.

[Justatruthseeker]

What about the Shapiro effect? Could that also explain red-shift in a non-expanding universe? It would also seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the BB model.

What is thought to be occurring in the Shapiro effect is again simply deflection of light through plasma halos, be it the suns halo or the galaxies.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/einstein/appendix2.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/index.html

No, because the Shapiro effect falls off with 1/log r. So it manifests way way outside of the halo of plasma immediately around the sun.

The plasma immediately around the sun may account for the "gravitational bending" of light and offers an alternative explanation to that given by the general theory of relativity. The Shapiro effect cannot be explained away so easily.

The other thing I should point out about the Shapiro effect is that it is not a bending of light but a delay in its travel. Again, I can believe light would be bent by refracting as it moves between lower and higher density plasma as may happen when passing near the sun, but this is different to what is going on with the Shapiro effect.

A delay in its travel sort of like light slows in a medium? Say a plasma medium?

[Uwe]

Another interesting detail I came across, is that many quantum physicists (or at least a few, but significant ones) also doubt the expanding-universe model.

For instance Hans-Peter Dürr, long-term colleague and successor of Werner Heisenberg at the Max-Planck Institute for Physics in Munich said: "The big bang is too much old physics to be correct. The universe doesn't 'unfold', it 'bangs' all the time."
That means, the universe is creative in any moment, not just at the beginning, if there was such a thing.
(This talk is also on Youtube, but in German. Here is a similar one in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUaT3IoCvkA)

Uwe

[willendure]

What about the Shapiro effect? Could that also explain red-shift in a non-expanding universe? It would also seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the BB model.

What is thought to be occurring in the Shapiro effect is again simply deflection of light through plasma halos, be it the suns halo or the galaxies.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/einstein/appendix2.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/index.html

No, because the Shapiro effect falls off with 1/log r. So it manifests way way outside of the halo of plasma immediately around the sun.

The plasma immediately around the sun may account for the "gravitational bending" of light and offers an alternative explanation to that given by the general theory of relativity. The Shapiro effect cannot be explained away so easily.

The other thing I should point out about the Shapiro effect is that it is not a bending of light but a delay in its travel. Again, I can believe light would be bent by refracting as it moves between lower and higher density plasma as may happen when passing near the sun, but this is different to what is going on with the Shapiro effect.

A delay in its travel sort of like light slows in a medium? Say a plasma medium?

That falls off perfectly with 1/log r. Does that describe the plasma density as you move away from the sun?

[Bengt Nyman]

Refraction occurs anytime light enters an area or a medium which is not a perfect vacuum. Higher frequencies undergo a higher degree of refraction and loss of energy than wavelengths with a lower frequency.

Any part of the universe which is not a perfect vacuum is enough to differentiate the refraction of blue light from red light, leaving light where the red end of the visible spectrum is more energetic than the blue end of the spectrum.

What we know about the content of the universe today severely challenges the old assumption that visible light can travel for millions of years through the universe without undergoing a degree of natural, environmental refraction and redshift.

Speculations and calculations about the origin, the age and the future of the universe without taking into account natural, environmental redshift is consequently questionable.