Only according the mainstream. Like I said there is a growing body of evidence that something in or about the medium between galaxies and us can cause redshift. Not just recession. I leave it to others here to explain that to you. I will say that not very many mainstream astrophysicists (or all the minions who report on science for them) will acknowledge this because it might spell the death of the goose that been laying all the golden eggs they been buying nice homes, cars, vacations, meals, kid's educations, Roths, etc with for decades and decades.
Also, I'll point out that Halton Arp theorized that quasars (which have high redshifts) are produced by active galaxies and as they evolve into galaxies themselves their redshift drops. So it could be that very little is receding out there ... that redshifts are mostly the result of something else and mainstream astrophysicists are simply being fooled. Or letting themselves be fooled at this point because so much is at stake for them financially and reputation wise. The response of the mainstream to Arp was to try and destroy him because his ideas threatened their grift.
As I said, I've leave it to others here to address that redshift might be due to something beside recession. What I'll point out is what I noted here ... https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... 9049#p9049 ... in a post I made today. In papers and articles for decades, the mainstream has used the word gas instead of plasma to describe what is seen.
But plasma is not the same as gas. It’s a fourth state of matter. It behaves completely differently in the presence of other plasmas ... in the presence of electric currents and magnetic fields. Their calling plasma, gas, is indicative of a major lack of understanding about what’s going one out there. And since plasmas are 99.99% of the visible (real) matter we see, don’t you think that would be a very important distinction?
And it’s not just the physics of plasma they won’t talk about, it’s electric current and how it creates magnetic fields. For example, in the article I reviewed at the above link, they state magnetic fields “are created by energetic particles in motion”. But it’s plasma carrying electric current, not energetic particles (which could be neutral particles), that produces the magnetic fields they see.
Furthermore, there are all sorts structures that their telescopes have revealed … filaments, helically wound filaments, double layers, jets … that all naturally form in plasmas … no gravity needed. They claim that it’s gravity and gravity only that “draws” a filament of gas (NO, PLASMA) “together” when in fact filaments will form naturally in plasma. All that’s needed is electric current and the magnetic fields they create. In fact, all that's needed is moving plasma!
They have no rational explanation for all the helically wound filaments they see out there. They call on gnomes … turbulence, shock waves … even “wind” in the media … to do it, while all the while ignoring the fact that we can create helically wound filaments in our labs without gravity playing a role, without turbulence, without shock waves, and without wind.
The honest truth, JoeB, is that they do not understand physics of plasma … physics that’s been understood long before Big Bang came along … and that is proven by the way they are flailing around to explain phenomena that PC/EU theorists can explain WITHOUT gravity or any of the nonsense they spout ... that PC/EU theorists explained 30-40 years ago! They were just ignored.
Can you imagine that after spending tens of billions of OUR tax dollars over 5 decades, they have admit in their articles that “there are still gaps in our knowledge of these magnetic fields, such as how strong they are, how have they evolved, and what their role is in the formation of this cosmic web.” It’s painfully obvious to anyone whose really paying attention that they are either clueless … or deliberate grifters, as I suggest in my post.
