paper on how redshift could be function of stellar age

[bdw000]

Here's a paper that might support Arp's idea that redshift is a function of age:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/julia.pdf

Personally, I am in no way qualified to judge the paper. Hopefully someone qualified will post their opinions.

[Steve Smith]

That paper is based on gravity and nuclear fusion.

[bdw000]

That paper is based on gravity and nuclear fusion.

[emphasis added]

True. But what's wrong with that?

EU doesn't question the very existence of gravity, just the improper use of gravity as the ONLY astronomical force worth mentioning, right?

If I understand correctly (not guaranteed!), they claim to be able to measure the gravitational redshift right here on the surface of the earth. It seems reasonable to conclude that gravity may have some affect on redshift. Putting aside the question of what, exactly, gravity IS, it seems to me that any serious ideas that could possibly support Arp's idea that redshift depends on age ought to be examined. Even if this guy's whole paper is flat out wrong, his IDEA might have something to it. Combine that idea with EU and maybe you get something.

Again, hoping some qualified EU types can voice an opinion on this article. Maybe it's not of any value. I am no expert.

[Steve Smith]

The stars are not nuclear.

[james weninger]

Here's a paper that might support Arp's idea that redshift is a function of age:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/julia.pdf

Personally, I am in no way qualified to judge the paper. Hopefully someone qualified will post their opinions.

1. The conclusion that "gravitational redshift may explain any redshift" is of course wrong. That is,even if redshift is affected by gravity,that does not rule out that doppler motion,magnetic fields,etc, ALSO affect redshift.
2. The assumption that age and size are related is also wrong. Stars may even expand or swell over time. So the arguement that older stars mean smaller stars means more redshift,is wrong too.
3. There is an interesting point here,however. The idea that a smaller radius for a given mass may cause a greater redshift. This could explain why a quasar is so redshifted;it appears redshifted simply because it is so compact. The arguement becomes:as we shrink a given mass down in size,gravitational forces at it's surface increase,causing more gravitational redshift of light emitted from that surface.
I would have to check if this point has been addressed elsewhere.

[webolife]

The gravitational surface forces [also related to heat/temperature] vs gravitational potential question is a significant one.
Regardless of whether a nuclear core or electrical stress is invoked to account for this, the fact that redshift is being accounted for by a mechanism other than stellar recessional velocity is intriguing. If the authors of this paper were to consider the case for the EU, they [and we] might be more gratified at the applicability of their thought experiment.

[Tzunamii]

Regardless of whether a nuclear core or electrical stress is invoked to account for this, the fact that redshift is being accounted for by a mechanism other than stellar recessional velocity is intriguing. If the authors of this paper were to consider the case for the EU, they [and we] might be more gratified at the applicability of their thought experiment.

I was also thinking along these lines.
lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Not that i believe for a second that the Authorities in mainstream science don't already know how close to the truth that the proponents of Eu & other "unpopular" astronomical scientists are, as well as the Historical ramifications. (what a cat to let out of the bag huh)
Funny though, how documentaries and papers are amalgamating plasma cosmology terms and ideas, bit by bit over the years.
When we get the song and dance "We knew it all along", at least a few of em will be telling the truth.

[bdw000]

Thanks for your replies everyone, especially James Weninger.

As all three of you have said, this is a very interesting possibility. Apply some routine physics to stars in a way that no one thought to do before, and see what pops up.

Even if the "physics" used was what most here would disagree with (relativity etc), if it can be used to simply point out contradictions in the standard line, or provide alternate interpretations of the "redshift = velocity" data, this could be VERY useful.

Some real physicists (not me!) could pobably look into this idea and within a week or two figure out if there is anything truly useful here.