Any alternative models for redshift generation?

The Hubble Constant is about 1nm/s2 when scaled to the SI system of units. This acceleration could be the result of gravity. The universe maybe has a mass density that could cause that acceleration. That would be quite a bit more mass than currently believed of indicated by BB or MM models.

AgoraBasta,

Another bit to consider: Given that almost weekly we are subjected to another Hubbell photo of and story about 'great masses of gas that are showing up, perhaps millions of miles in diameter..' and are thought to be 'much more common than previously imagined..' And what is already known about the propagation delay effects of added earth atmosphere near sunset (hence the red shift phenomenon), frequency shifts of all kinds could be happening due to such gasses between source and observer! For them to admit such an obvious connection however would be admitting the possibility that they have misconstrued much about what is going on in the heavens.

Leland


Leland

Jim and Leland,

The mechanisms you both propose should produce both downshift and broadening of the spectral lines into a continuous spectrum. The gravity of the source can explain some of the most common cases of redshift from the nearby sources and those far-away sources that are alike to those we have next to us here in our galaxy.
To explain the source-specific shifts, we must look for object-specific processes inside of or nearby to those objects; and those processes should produce very small "broadening to shift ratio".

Basta.

As for gas in the IGM causing quasar redshift there is a lot of work being done and lots of data showing ionized hydrogen clouds are quite common in the IGM. The spectral line data is a mystery to me and if there is a lot to be learned from this data someone should be doing the detective work. The details are quite hard to figure out. You seem to me to be saying the expanding model fits the data best. I wonder if that is so or if it just looks that way?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You seem to me to be saying the expanding model fits the data best. I wonder if that is so or if it just looks that way?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Absolutely no! I say that there are quite a few different mechanisms generating the redshift. Some mechanisms must be working exactly at the source of emission, like in the quasars which exibit anomalous redshifts if we assume them as "near" objects.
The redshift happening in the "regular" interstellar space is laughably easy to explain, in fact there's an obvious mechanism that's absolutely impossible to disprove.
We know that the gravitational field in vacuum is exactly equivalent to flat Euclidean space and time with varying permittivity and permeability of vacuum.
When travelling though such a spatialy non-regular medium, an EM wave of a non-zero spectrum width shall radiate a secondary EM field at a beat frequency equal to the its spectrum width in a direction of a (would-be) reflection from the equipotential surfaces in that gravitational field. (The mechanism is essentially the same as beat-frequency signal rectification on non-linearity in electronics.)
Here I'm tepmted to say that even the highly monochromatic sources still do exhibit a non-zero spectrum width of a 1/<i>delta</i>_f spectral density...
Thus, travelling through gravitational fields of material objects, any kind of light loses energy to a wide spectrum radio-frequency (and higher) background noise.
One peculiar consequence of this mechanism is that a short burst EM signal will not only shift down in the spectrum, but also get extended in duration, somewhat mimicking the "time-dilation of supernovae bursts" of the BB model.

I just about understand how a photon can be absorbed and reradiated by a molecule or atom so what you are saying is way beyond me. It is very interesting evenso because if what you say is electronically correct then you may have a new explaination that would be accepted by the established theory editors. What about the Lyman Alpha Forrest in quasar redshift? Is this part of your explaination of observations?