Gravity and the Red Shift

"Why the Big Bang is Wrong" by John Kierein (1981)

The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect. See The Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe by Grote Reber and Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect by John Kierein. The latter describes how the Compton effect cosmological red shift accelerates with increasing distance.

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. 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. She is co-author of the definitive book on quasars, "Quasi-Stellar Objects", and even has an asteroid named for her. If some quasars are so nearby, even in our galaxy, they may even exhibit proper motion in the sky as the Earth travels around the sun. Such a proper motion has been seen. See Quasar Absolute Proper Motion for a table that includes such proper motion observations.

Some such quasars may be double stars, with one member being an ordinary star and the other exhibiting a large red shift and being labeled as a quasar. The 100,000th Hubble Image is a good candidate for such a pair. Ken Kellerman of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has also suggested that the red shift of quasars may be intrinsic and not an indication of their distance in a classic 1972 paper Radio Galaxies, Quasars and Cosmology published in the Astronomical Journal. A recent discovery of a quasar with a huge red shift greater than 7 has called into question whether the big bang is wrong. Most distant quasar raises questions. All problems are gone if its redshift is intrinsic.

The red shift on the sun is obviously not Doppler since the sun is not moving away from us. This shift shows a variation in magnitude that correlates with the number of electrons along the line of sight. It is smallest at the solar center and greatest at the limb where we are looking through the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere. John Kierein and Brooks Sharp showed this correlation as a Compton effect interpretation in the journal "Solar Physics" in March of 1968. Compton himself believed this was the cause of the solar red shift (see Compton, A. H., 1923 Phil. Mag. 46, 897). The electrons on the sun are concentrated in altitude by gravity with the greatest density near the sun's surface (the photosphere) to produce the sun's intrinsic red shift. Similarly, the quasar red shift (and other bright, hot young stars' "K effect" intrinsic red shift - see Arp's book, "Seeing Red") have an intrinsic Compton effect red shift concentrated at or very near the object's surface.

In addition to this red shift on the sun, which is there all the time and is on the order of 1 part in a million, there has been measured a gamma ray red shift that occurred only during a large solar flare. This solar flare red shift was nearly 1 percent or one part in a hundred! It was measured by the RHESSI satellite. The red shift varied by the element, the heavier element having a bigger red shift. I believe this red shift is also due to the Compton effect and is caused by the gamma rays ionizing the elements and releasing electrons from these element "targets". The heavier elements have greater numbers of electrons to release and consequently have multiple Compton collisions and greater red shifts. Other gamma ray red shifts such as this are also intrinsic Compton effect red shifts.

For the Compton effect to cause the cosmological red shift, intergalactic space must have a density of free electrons and/or positrons. The further light travels through this transparent medium, the greater the red shift - and Hubble's law follows. The existence of electrons and positrons in intergalactic space has been shown by observations of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays coming from above our galactic plane. This is the direction our galaxy is plowing into the intergalactic medium. (See "Peculiar Velocity of the Sun and its Relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background" by J.M. Stewart & D.W.Sciama, Nature vol. 216,p 748f, Nov. 25, 1967.) This is observed from the, appropriately named, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere.

Indeed, while intergalactic space was once thought to be empty, now we know it is filled with clouds of high velocity gas that contain molecular hydrogen. This molecular hydrogen is thought to come from the condensation of hydrogen atoms that are just free electrons and protons. When light hits these free electrons, it produces the Compton effect red shift.

Recently discovered cosmic radio bursts show dispersion as they interact with intergalactic electrons. These interactions also must cause a Compton effect red shift. About 10,000 of these bursts are inferred to occur every day. Next generation radio telescopes should be able to detect these highly dispersed sources routinely.

If the Compton effect causes the red shift, the universe is not expanding, but rather is "static". Max Born (and others - see below) did an analysis of the background temperature of such a universe and found that it doesn't differ greatly from the observed 3 degree kelvin background.

Grote Reber predicted that this interpretation of the red shift would result in a dispersion in the arrival times of extragalactic signals. The recent pinpointing of the extragalactic nature of gamma ray bursts and the delay in arrival times of longer wavelength radiation from these events confirms this prediction as shown in Dark Matter by John Kierein. This time lag for longer wavelengths is shown by Dr. Jay Norris to provide a method of measuring distance to the gamma ray source.

Some say that the Compton effect should cause the light to be scattered and distance sources blurred. Does scattering cause blurring? Not necessarily. Note how the Milky Way stars at the edge of the Barnard 68 dust cloud are not at all blurred even though they are dimmed to extinction as their photons are absorbed and scattered. Also note how, when this object is viewed in the Infrared, the background stars shine right through this cloud without blurring! Dark matter causes light to bend without blurring.

The Compton effect is completely explained in terms of conservation of energy and momentum. The electric and magnetic vectors of the radiation are not affected, so the ExH vector proceeds with a slower velocity than c according to the index of refraction of the transparent intergalactic medium. The wavefront of the group velocity travels in the ExH direction with the wavefront reconstructed as Huygens' secondary wavelets at the scattering center sites. Thus, the light is slowed slightly by the Compton interaction with the transparent medium, but the source is not blurred. When the radiation is a short pulse, this slowing shows up as dispersion of the pulse.

The Big Bang Has Many Problems

There are a great many problems with the Big Bang Theory that have not been solved. Many of these are identified in Bill Mitchell's paper, " Big Bang Theory Under Fire". These problems include the idea that there are many objects observed that are older than the time from the big bang, which is variously estimated to be from 10 to 15 billion years ago, with the best estimates being 10 billion years using trigonometry rather than cepheid variable brightness.

Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy are thought to be older than 15 billion years and there seem to be similar stars that are seen in galaxies that are many billions of light years away from us and thus apparently formed closer to the time of the big bang.

Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best direct measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age. Radio galaxy measurement has found carbon in the early universe which shouldn't be there if there was a big bang since it takes too long to form.

Even our earth is thought to be 5 billion years old, and is expected to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun expands and swallows it up. The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang. VLT observations of a gamma ray burst has found an early galaxy with ingredients much older than the big bang.

Similarly, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape. Many spiral galaxies are seen at a large distance and therefore from a time closer to the big bang which would indicate they would have had time for even fewer rotations. Recent Hubble Photo shows spiral galaxies within 5% of big bang time leaving time for only 2 or 3 rotations at our galaxy's rotation rate. The galaxies in this photo don't seem to be crowded closer together as one would expect if they were really so close to the big bang.

There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.

Hercules A appears to be the largest object observed in the known universe in radio astronomy observations. It would not be such an unusually large intrinsic object if its redshift is intrinsic due to local Compton effect scattering, and it is nearer than its redshift would indicate.

Galactic redshift surveys show a regularity in the spacing of galaxies a quarter of the way to the time of the supposed big bang. This is totally different from a big bang expectation which would have them closer together as they get closer to the time of the big bang.

How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?

Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.

There are also some great problems with the "singularity" of the big bang. What happened before the big bang?? The big bang theorists can't answer this question and just say it's a meaningless question. (They like to say it's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?" - Actually it's not like asking that at all. North is a direction; time is a measure of change. If there was no change before the big bang, then how could it have started?)

If there was a big bang, the temperature of the background radiation would have had to be much higher in the past. Yet there are observed cosmic ray particles, that are protons or nuclei of atoms that are traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light. These particles can't plow through the background radiation field at these higher temperatures without interacting with the photons of such a high temperature background and being stopped. But the highest energy cosmic rays are observed at energies beyond this theoretical cutoff energy.

The temperature of intergalactic space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion. They predicted the 2.7 degree K background temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang. See "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves in Aperion Vol.2, Nr. 3, page 79f, July 1995. See also their other paper: "Redshift revisited" (Unfortunately, their second paper misses the greater number of collisions a longer wavelength photon has when the red shift is comprised of multiple Compton interactions.)

There are many other discrepancies in redshift observations that are much better explained by non-Doppler shifts. Hubble, of course, didn't agree that the redshift was Doppler (see his book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" or Allan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs). There were several difficulties with this interpretation that he pointed out. Not the least of which is that if it were Doppler, then not only should each photon be stretched out by the Doppler effect, but also the distance between each photon. Because the photon flux is reduced, this causes the object undergoing a Doppler redshift to appear less bright than a corresponding object undergoing a non-doppler redshift. Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with this brightness correction. He also knew that a simpler, non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation, and he felt that simpler was better. He didn't know what causes the photons to lose energy as they travel through space, but he felt that it is some "new principle of nature" that I think is the Compton effect.

As big bang theorists attempt to solve the age problem by making the time to the big bang longer, they exacerbate the quasar problem. Quasars become even farther away and intrinsically brighter. Yet their temperature remains that of ordinary stars as exhibited by emission spectra of metallic ions that can only exist at a limited range of temperature. They are known to be about stellar size since they vary in brightness on a scale of a few minutes to seconds. How do they stay so bright at such a low temperature in such a small volume? They can't. They must have an intrinsic non-Doppler redshift and be nearby to be explained.

If neutrinos have mass about 1 ten millionth the mass of the electron, their Compton Effect red shift would be 10 million times that of that of the electron. The probability of a neutrino Compton Effect remains to be determined.

Paul Marmet has presented ideas very similar to the idea that the Compton effect causes the red shift and presents additional evidence against the big bang at his web site.

The stability of a static universe with a Compton Effect cosmological red shift is explained here and another paper can be found here. A paper showing no time dilation in quasar variability can be found here. Time dilation would be required if the quasar red shift were Doppler, so this result indicates an intrinsic non-Doppler quasar red shift such as a Compton effect red shift.

You'll love William Mitchell's book: "Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality" . Also Lyndon Ashmore's book: "Big Bang Blasted".

Ever wonder what causes gravity? See the book: PUSHING GRAVITY. I have a chapter in the book.

Scientists have measured the speed of gravity to be the speed of light as Charles Brush and I predicted. (Unfortunately, Brush later believed the pushing gravity was due to shorter wavelengths rather than longer.) This is in contrast to Tom Van Flandern's prediction that the speed of gravity was many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light (which others have rebutted).

Brush invented the carbon arc lamp, a dynamo and introduced street lighting to the world; Brush Electric eventually merged with Edison Electric to form General Electric; Brush was first president of Linde Air Products, Brush also invented storage batteries and wind generators; Brush founded Brush Wellman Beryllium (now Materion) and, I recently learned, was a founder of Union Carbide (now a Dow subsidiary) who made me a Union Carbide Scholar at Notre Dame.

My brother, Tom, is a weatherman on WRC in Washington,DC. He often meets scientists, astronauts, etc. He asked the late Carl Sagan what he thought about the Compton effect causing the red shift. Carl's response was: "That would change EVERYTHING!"

This video explains what it changes. View the still valid, 1981 classic ugly sweater video: "Gravity and the Red Shift" on YouTube. My updates are in the comments. The videotape or DVD, "Gravity and the Red Shift", is also available from the author. It describes the cause of gravity in the endless, static universe. $5 for a postpaid copy ordered from jkierein@lycos.com.

Visit: http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

Watch online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywu8cVgRpwE