Dr. Mary Ruwart wrote:

It is true a that a large red shift has been observed in the farthest
away galaxy sized objects.

The idea itself has within it the possible seeds of its own
destruction. We correlate actual distance to the redshift.

But what exactly does this mean?

Yes, a bit more clearly, that is the question, "what does
the redshift mean?"

One
possible explanation is that the Universe is flying away from itself
at high relavistic velocities. But there is no observed mechanism to
drive it at those speeds and certainly no observed collisions with
other objects while traveling at these high velocities. Again what has
been observed in telescopes through spectroscopic instruments is a
very large red shift in these very dim and considered very far away
objects (galaxies or galaxy sized objects). It is certainly a theory,
and in time it may be proven true.

Progress deems it necessary that the theory be proved incorrect
in at least some aspect or another.

But there are many problems with it.

Oh yes!

Some of these problems have given rise to such outlandish
proposals as variable gravity and membrane theory.

As well as aging light and a host of other ideas.

Normally in science
if you make an observation that is spurious it is rejected.

However acceptance is often based on very unscientific
reasons, including the place an individual has in the
scientific community (as was true in this particular
instance.)

But what
has happened here is that outlandish observations using spectroscopic
equipment using the biggest telescopes has been confirmed over and
over again. It is being interpreted by astronomers and astrophyscists
the best way they can. Give them some time to sort out their science.

Time? How long did it take, from first observation, to
resolve geocentricity? Some questions can probably never
be satisfactorally answered


We do not know what is happening on the edge of the universe to
produce these "accelerating galaxies". The tremendous distances appear
to be correct but there may be another explanation eventually
discovered.

That models appear to work for the duration is what keeps us going.


If I were prone to make the jumps in statements you do

("Mitch")

as truth then I
would be guilty of confusing truth with wild speculation. I will give
you an example of a favorite speculation of mine that is quite beyond
science fiction. I propose a daydream if you will. Please consider it
only as a silly daydream of a bored woman staring out the window in
the middle of the afternoon.

This speculation of mine suggests what if the distances are actually
far smaller than the instruments "measure". When the universe expanded
in early time it also expanded away from the original center where
today there is nothing, not even time and space. But light can only
propogate through time-space, so it cant leave the universe in a
straight line as it appears to travel to us because we can never see
it from the outside of the universe. If the multidimensional theory
of the early universe is correct then time-space expands outward along
with matter and energy. But today then the universe would not
resemble a sphere. What if it resembles a smaller sphere with a hollow
center? So the light from distant galaxies curve around over very long
distances back from where it came. That might mean that the oldest
light circulates through this smaller universe in iterations according
to the properties our universe actually has. In this speculation we
might see the milky way galaxy as it looked one iteration ago (the
actual time light took to complete one revolution around the universe)
But we might also see the milky way galaxy as it appeared two
iterations ago in another part of the sky. We could never know it was
the Milky Way. (Maybe. Maybe not.) What effect would these distortions
of light suffer as they moved around our universe how many times since
the Big Bang? 2? 5? 10? More? What would we see in any direction no
matter where pointed our telescopes? Galaxies in all directions. Even
appearing to come from a part of the sky we could never know was
originally the point of the big bang because light can only travel in
a straight line through Time-Space and there at the center it would be
horribly distorted. How distorted? Enough to create the illusion of
galaxies accelerating when they are already "travelling" near the
speed of light ?

There is probably no way for humans to test the truth of such
a theory, let alone possible variations within arm's length
of many theories.

As ludicrous as this science fiction of mine sounds, it still sounds
more logical than variable gravity or membrane theory or multiples of
dimensions to explain how the galaxies actually do accelerate while
already travelling at the speed of light. And those things are
published in real magazines by people who get paid to look.

In real tests (not the just the human created paper ones) there
are more questions than there is time available to answer them.
My universe began when I was born and will end when I die. In
someone else's universe some answers will doubtless be
discovered, though it is doubtful that all the questions
(which themselves manifest at an ever greater rate) will
ever be answered. Might it be said that knowledge has become
a lifeform?

Thats why a theory has to have observation, then a prediction of
future events based on a premise, then a test to verify what actually
happened and last, repeatabilty. Others also do the experiment and see
the same results and publish about it. That is what is required to
have a widely accepted theory.

Otherwise all you have is science fiction.

Which is what "Mitch" promotes and which he calls "doing
science."