Conventional scientific wisdom in the area of astronomy and astrophysics is that when observing objects in the Cosmos, the more red-shifted the object observed, the farther away it is. It is one of the bedrock theories in astronomy and a linch-pin of the Big Bang Theory.
But what if that assumption is wrong? What if red-shifts are being mis-interpreted and that red-shifts might not have anything to do with distance?
According to astronomer Halton Arp, quasars that have a high red-shift (thus are interpreted to be very far away) are intrinsically linked to galaxies that are lightly red-shifted, and thus are known to be closer. How can that be?
The distribution on the sky of clusters of galaxies started to be cataloged about 40 years ago by George Abell and collaborators. The cores of these clusters were predominantly old stellar population E galaxies which were believed to be mostly gas free and inactive. With the advent of X-ray surveys, however, it became evident that many clusters of galaxies were strong X-ray emitters. This evidence for non-equilibrium behavior was not easily explained. In these active properties, however, the clusters joined AGN’s and quasars as the three principal kinds of extragalactic X-ray sources. Evidence then developed that quasars, and now some galaxy clusters were physically associated with much lower redshift galaxies. Surprisingly, the cluster redshifts were sharply peaked at the preferred quasar redshifts of z = .061, .30 etc. (This evidence has been discussed principally in Arp 1997; 1998a; Arp and Russell 2001).
It was possible to explore these properties further by plotting the distribution of galaxy clusters on other, larger areas on the sky. Some appeared projected along the spine of the Virgo Cluster. It turned out that the Abell clusters which were located in that part of the sky in the direction of Fornax fell in the same distinctively elongated area as the large, low redshift Fornax Cluster. (The Abell clusters reach to about z = .2 limit and the brightest galaxy in the Fornax cluster is z = .0025.) On the sky, in the direction of the giant, low redshift galaxy CenA/NGC5128, the Abell clusters fell almost exclusively along a broadening extension of the X-ray, radio jet going northward from this active galaxy. This is the same line occupied by a number of active, higher redshift galaxies which have been previously associated with ejection of radio plasma from CenA (Arp 1998a).
I am not an astronomer, or astrophysicist, but my interpretation of the above paragraphs is that these radio and x-ray emitting galaxies (and quasars) with varying degrees of red-shift are physically linked with one another along a straight line, and has nothing to do with distance at all!
So what is causing the perceived variations of red-shift?
According to Plasma Cosmology, the variations of red-shift are temperature differences of the objects’ plasma:
Astronomers consider plasma to be an ionized gas that behaves according to the same laws that a neutral gas follows, with some modification for magnetic effects. Because they cannot directly measure the properties of extragalactic space, they have developed mathematical models based on the behavior of neutral gases.
Hannes Alfvén, the father of plasma cosmology, took a different approach. In the opening to his monograph, Cosmic Plasma, he describes how the pure theory approach lost touch with reality. Rather than theorize about how plasma is supposed to act, he studied how it actually behaves in the laboratory. Among the many differences between plasma’s actual behavior and the theoretical model are temperature anomalies like the one in the galaxy clusters above: temperatures of ions and electrons are 10 to 100 times higher than expected in neutral gases. So, from an Electric Universe point of view, the anomalous temperature seen in the above galaxy clusters are a normal property of the plasma interaction between clusters.
So what do we take from this? Are our present cosmological models wrong, and have been wrong for 100 years?
Is our Sun a huge ball of plasma, and not a fusion furnace?
We know fusion exists, because we weaponized it.
But could this explain why we haven’t come up with a way to build a reactor that’s capable of controlling the process, after over 50 years of exploding the first H-bomb?
Are we going down the wrong track here?