1. In all visible parts of the universe, including our own laboratories, matter and energy interconvert but never
disappears nor reappears from a field-less vacuum.
2. The stronger our telescopes have become over the past 6 centuries, the farther out they can see and the further
back in time they can detect light (luminescent) and dark (non-luminescent) matter. Who is certain enough to guarantee
that if we built an even larger telescope now, we could not see even further away than 13-14 billion light years distance?
I would suggest only fools and madmen would be so certain of such folly.
At the present time, we are getting more and more reports of inconsistencies between the extrapolated
"age" of the expanding universe's model and the presence of older, organized structures near or even beyond that Hubble Big
Bang limit! A growing number of astrophysicists and cosmologists are finally beginning to question their ASSUMPTION
about the age of the supposed observable universe when they observe such "over-limit" ancient galaxies but little
or no questioning has reached the public forums on whether there is more universe that is beyond the present limitations of
our small telescopes.
If they taught the Beers-Lambert Law in astronomy classes like it is taught in chemistry, the astrophysicists
would have been more attuned to and aware of the relationship between the light pathlength versus the concentration of
spectrally-active substances in outer space. In extremely long light pathlengths, such as exist between us and a glowing
galaxy some 10 - 13 billion light years distant, the concentration of a redshifting spectrally-active substance would only
have to be on the order of an atom or so every cubic centimeter! The overall effect on the spectrum is identical to
and indistinguishable from a recessional velocity mechanism, i.e., the farther away the light source,
the more redshifted the spectral features of its visible spectrum!
3. Olber's paradox made an erroneous assumption that all the universe is composed of only luminescent light sources
(stars). With the realization that there is an abundance of dark, opaque matter and light-scattering dust out there,
a dark sky is the new logical deduction.
4. There are a number of physicochemical mechanisms other than recessional velocity that can lead to a redshift
in spectral lines. Hubble only reported on a few selected remote galaxies' spectra when he conducted his redshift
research. It was others who applied the main scientific ASSUMPTION that the apparent redshifted spectra were caused
by the physics of recessional velocity (a la Doppler)! That then led to the ASSUMPTION that if we find redshifted spectra
in all directions, it must mean that the universe is expanding. Of course, that is pure rubbish. But it was
then tenuously tied mathematically to relativity theory and that made the continuing scientific skeptics less vociferous since
they had no ready alternate hypothesis to explain things. This all transpired before the 1920s. During the
first half of the 20th century and especially towards the 1950s, physical and analytical chemists and spectroscopists developed many
important new observations about how matter and light interact and with some of those interactions, interesting changes
took place with the initial spectral properties. These changes included a shift of spectral lines and bands, usually towards
the red end of the visible spectrum. Such redshift observations were made in the field of Optical Rotatory Dispersion
and Circular Dichroism and the effects of light-scattering particles of certain sizes and polarizing properties.
The sharp absorption and emission lines and bands in the visible spectrum are created by electron
transitions in atoms and molecules. Those are relatively low energy phenomena. But when one looks for redshifts
in spectral features originating in the soft or hard x-ray, gamma ray or even infrared parts of the spectra of very remote
objects, no reports have been forthcoming that those parts of the spectrum show a redshift consistent with
the distance of the object, as Hubble's relationship points out for the visible spectral features. Could it be that
the redshift is only present in the UV and visible portion of the spectrum because the underlying physical mechanism is only
capable of interacting with that narrow range of energy levels? That speaks strikingly against the Doppler mechanism
for the redshift mechanism.
Such underlying redshift mechanisms could include the following physicochemical interactions:
A. Fluorescence, especially if caused by mixed polyaromatic hydrocarbon
compounds (rather abundant in space)
B. Differential Mie and Tyndall light scattering (e.g., why the sky
is blue and the sunset is red and the ocean becomes bluer the deeper you go)
C. Light reflection from polarizing surfaces
D. Internal refraction and birefringence that takes place within transmitted
light in certain common crystalline substances (e.g., calcite)
E. Pleochroism that occurs as light passes through certain organic
and inorganic photoactive compounds (e.g., colloidal silver particles in suspension or as a thin cloud in a vacuum)
F. Phosphorescence (basically a longer duration mechanism similar
G. Diffraction (such as causes the scales of butterflies and fishes
to appear colored when they are not)
H. Luminescence (chemical reactions, photochemical reactions, or physical
force can induce light emission or altered spectral properties)
If you set up your test apparatus properly, each and every one of the above mechanisms will show an
APPARENT redshift in the optical spectrum of a light source. No relativistic recessional motion of the light source
is required! QED