This entire post, and all the topics within rely on things that have yet to be proven.
1. That galaxies actualy are moving away from us(milkyway or center of universe). This is not a known fact, red shift, has come under serious fire
once again lately. The entire idea that the universe is expanding is based on a possibly misunderstood princaple and when we look out "nearby" objects
in the local group we can see that not all galaxies are moving away form each other, they collide, etc. This right there is more evidence saying that
the universe is not expanding in the way that current science likes to explain. Red shift is simply a best guest, and the "currently most likely
Redshift mechanism is presently argued as proof for the expansion of the universe, in order to explain the famous observation that the spectral
redshifts of distant galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas clouds increase in proportion to their distance from the observer. This hypothesis is a
key feature of the Big Bang model of physical cosmology.
But is it really so? Consider the following thought model:
You are suspended in a swimming pool. The water of the swimming pool......is dyed ever so slightly red...
...Light bulbs are of different intensities - they represent different galaxies..
Since the blue end of the spectrum is absorbed by intergalactic space faster than the red, the observer can only distinguish the closer sources of
approaching light as approaching motion...
A light source that is located at an appreciable distance will not show any blue shift, even though it is approaching us...
Because of the intergalactic medium (mostly hydrogen,) a far away light source will appear increasingly red with respect to its distance from the
observer. Hence the phenomenon of Redshift...
This scenario suggests that the Doppler Redshift is effective only at "short" distances, but that - as the illustration infers - Redshift at cosmic
distances does not denote velocity, only distance, and would go some way to explaining why galaxies so close to the supposed "Big Bang" look much the
same as they do around our local intergalactic neighborhood.
Reber showed that the Compton effect was the cause of the red shift in order to explain the observations of bright, very long wavelength,
extragalactic radio waves. Kierein used the Compton effect explanation to explain quasars and the red shift on the sun.
Quasars may be much closer than their red shift would indicate if they have an "intrinsic" red shift due to being surrounded by a 'fuzzy' atmosphere
containing free electrons and other material(plasma). This concentration of electrons produces the unusual red shift as the light travels through it
and loses energy to these electrons per the Compton effect. The famed astronomer, Margaret Burbidge, is a strong proponent of the quasar intrinsic red
shift. She questions their distance and believes quasars are associated with lower red shift galaxies.
2. I also want you to notice the very careful language used by those at planck in that video. Never once did the actual scientist claim anything
concrete. In fact recent expiraments at planck have suggested many odd effects that science is not taking into consideration in the standard model.
Planck has just as clearly shown that galaxies likely do not require gravity to form as they have shown there is likely a black hole at the center of
the milky way. They are one of the few places left doing real science and are open enough to consider other possibilities.
edit on 11-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)