Thank you Hubble.

[Bengt Nyman]

The observations made possible by the Hubble telescope represent a quantum leap in our understanding of the universe. Some of the human conclusions drawn from what it has shown us, however, need to be reexamined.
1. We presently assume that a faint, reddish light in a Hubble image is a distant white star, red shifted by the expansion of the universe.
2. Based on the observed red frequency we calculate a relative velocity between the observer and the distancing star caused by expansion of the universe.
3. We also calculate the relative velocity for an even more faint and red shifted star.
4. Since velocity 3 comes out higher than velocity 2 we conclude the universe is not only expanding, but expanding at an accelerating pace.
5. From 3 and 4 above we calculate backwards and arrive at a point in time, a singularity, a big bang and the birth of space from which the entire universe was created.
6. Furthermore, to explain today’s continuing and accelerated expansion we now need a force, opposed to and stronger than gravity.
7. We propose dark mass and dark energy as a possible way to drive the universe apart.

As you can see, the above chain of guesses, assumptions and mathematics quickly looses meaning to most people.

If I were to guess as freely as the above I would propose an alternative:

1. Hubble shows the existence of a black hole at the center of each observable galaxy.
2. A black hole is a crusher returning stars, planets, etc into gamma and other EM energy.
3. EM energy is the fusion fuel which forms electrons, protons and hydrogen atoms which later light up new stars.
4. The energy recycling through the universe from black holes back into new particles, atoms and stars does not represent an empty vacuum through which white light can travel for billions of years without some interference and some loss of energy.
5. The red shift that we observe from very distant stars is therefore not necessarily or exclusively caused by an accelerated expansion of the universe.

However, my guesses are as academic as those by anybody else.

My hope is that the new James Webb space telescope planned to be in operation around year 2030 will enable us to replace some of the presently unsupported speculations in astrophysics with observations leading to new and better conclusions.

[Zyxzevn]

It seems to me that most of the redshift is caused by distance in some way, not by expansion.
There is a lot of evidence for that.

I do also think that there are heavy objects in the centres of galaxies.
But I do not think that they are black holes. I think that the maths and physics of black holes is flawed.
I think that the heavy objects are related to some other kind of physics, that we do not understand yet.

I do think that the galaxy centres also cause an electric charge difference.
This is also possible with black-hole physics, but I think that the physics is different.

And I think that the Halos around the galaxies are related to those charge-differences.
Maybe the electrons are ejected out of the galaxy in some way.
In reports of "magnetic galaxies" we may replace magnetic with electric in many cases, since
the reports are based on the zeeman effect for magnetic fields, which is the same as
the stark effect for electric fields.

[Bengt Nyman]

It seems to me that most of the redshift is caused by distance in some way, not by expansion.
There is a lot of evidence for that. I do also think that there are heavy objects in the centers of galaxies ...

Agreed.

Astrophysics today tends to draw unreasonably large checks from what little we actually know. For example the claims about the beginning of the universe, the singularity, and the big bang does not hold up to scrutiny in any court, scientific or judicial. If these stars move at all there is no reason to assume that the direction of move is exclusively away from our point of observation, thus invalidating any calculations about velocity, origin, timing and singularity. We have never observed red shifted stars long enough to know that they all move radially from the same point. Since gravity is the centripetal force in rotating galaxies and other large rotating subsystems any observed moves are more likely to be complex trajectories without any straight line commonality or any common origin.

My support for a black hole as the recycler in each galaxy, crushing fusion products back into energy primaries is based on the fact that with all the stars in each galaxy fusing smaller primaries together into bigger ones, there has to exist a crusher of fusion products back into energy primaries, to maintain the balance of energy within each galaxy.

[kodybatill]

Here Bengt Nyman - querious suggested that I showed you my work. Might be related to the gravity dipole. Check this out if you want!!:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16899

[Bengt Nyman]

Thank you kodybatill.