Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
[If there is a non-Doppler effect in the redshift, how much "is" Doppler? Can it be as little as none? And if it is none, whither thou goest expansion?

So...what does cause redshift? I hear two answers, atomic hydrogen and the second is molecular hydrogen. Over...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The largest redshifts are observed in quasars. The very complex spectrum of the quasars is fully understood using a CREIL effect in atomic hydrogen. Thus, a possible Doppler frequency shift is very small.
The CREIL in atomic hydrogen explains the largest part of the frequency shifts of the "Very Red Objects" (VROs), the frequency shift of the radio signals from Pioneer 10 and 11...
Maybe H2+ produces (or contributes) the redshift corresponding to Hubble law. It would be necessary to search Raman resonances close to 100 MHz in its spectrum (which is complicated !).
There is no proof of expansion.

[jmb]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center><b><font size="4"><font face="Impact">There is no proof of expansion</font id="Impact"></font id="size4"></b></center><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center><b><font size="4"><font face="Impact">With no expansion, there is no reason to extrapolate backwards to a point.</font id="Impact"></font id="size4"></b></center><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center><b><font size="4"><font face="Impact">Without a point beginning,there is no big bang</font id="Impact"></font id="size4"></b></center><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

But to get down to the fundamental assumptions involved, I remember an Astrophysics lunch at Cal Tech about 30 years ago. Stephen Hawking sat across the table from several of us who were discussing observations of ejection of new galaxies from the compact nuclei of active galaxies. Nothing of this ever crept into Hawking’s assumptions about Black Holes. Only very recently has he abandoned his dictum that nothing comes out of Black Holes and famously now concedes that a ”little bit” does come out. Meanwhile, in the many intervening years, stunning new evidence has emerged on the White Hole propensities of nature. It's only failure I can see is not getting into the press releases.

Halton Arp
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Astrophysik
85741 Garching
Germany<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

IF one were to query wikipedia about non-standard cosmology and plasma cosmology one will find that both of them are being maintained by big bang supporters who manage to twist everything around such that non-standard cosmology is of historical significance only.

So it is that the scientists of cosmology ignore the evidence contradicting their version, refuse to allow it to be published, and then let their followers claim that their position has been published more successfully.

These guys are not acting rationally. It could be that rational arguments will not work with them. If they are lying and deceiving then nothing will change them.

What we need is a science court,