The Blueshift Hypothesis (2009-04-13) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

The Blueshift Hypothesis (2009-04-13)

The Big Bang Theory rests on the assumption that since the more distant galaxies are "red-shifted" (or displaying more red colors than blue colors on the visible light spectrum), they must be moving away from us, and moving away at a faster pace than nearby galaxies... What if the opposite is true?

And wouldn't this make more sense, given what we know about gravity? Objects that are closer would be pulled in toward us over time because of our gravitational effect. Objects that are farther away wouldn't really be in our gravity field at all, and so would have less of a blue shift (or what is now referred to as a red shift).

The theory that everything in our universe began in one place and then exploded has many flaws, which is why crazy theories explaining the first couple seconds or minutes of the explosion have been concocted since. For example, if matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light, how could all the mass in the universe in one place have the necessary escape velocity to expand without immediately collapsing upon its own gravity? (Particles traveling the speed of light cannot even escape a black hole, so this would be impossible.)

If closer objects have a blue shift (rather than distant objects having a red shift), this could mean that the universe, as a whole, could be static and might not require a start nor an end of times. I realize that there are a lot of people out there that live and die by the whole Big Bang idea (especially because it provides a beginning, which coincides nicely with a deity creating the universe), and I am an amateur astronomist at best, but I do tend to believe that theories that are easier to comprehend are generally more correct. When you need complex mathematical equations to explain away problems, the basic underlying assumptions should be reevaluated.