Redshift Anomalies Are Key to Understanding Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Black Holes and the Unobservable Universe.

Authors: H.S. Dhaliwal

A galaxy's redshift is not related to the Hubble velocity alone. Numerous redshift anomalies have been detected which suggest this. This papers goal is to explain the nature of these redshifts. Redshift anomalies in Quasars with a high-z, binary galaxies with a mass gaining companion with a discordant high-z, and the furthest galaxies with high-z values all have a similar trait, their mass is increasing at a high rate at time of observation. This paper proposes that when an objects gravity well is in the process of strengthening (by gaining mass), the light observed during its gravity well strengthening phase is redshifted accordingly. I provide numerous observations of objects that are closer than their high z values places them under current interpretation that support the hypothesis. The greater the look back time, the younger the galaxy, the younger the galaxy when observed, the faster its gravity well is strengthening. The faster a gravity well is figuratively deepening, the further photons will be stretched that traverse and depart the morphing gravity well. The implications of this phenomenon have one of three outcomes for the nature of the observable universe. A. the universe is not expanding as fast as estimated. B. the universe is static (redshifts will still appear higher the farther we look). C. the universe is contracting (the redshifts still appear higher the farther we look). The redshift anomaly can help us understand dark matter also. Z total = the affects of (change in GW well of the observable universe) + (change in GW of Milky Way) + (change in GW of observed galaxy) + (Velocity of observed galaxy). The paper contains numerous tests that may prove the hypothesis presented. To not even glance at these redshift anomalies because they don't agree with today's model of measuring expansion is just preventing advancement in the field, halting future discoveries. Correction: (Obs. 2) Here, object 2 (z=0.243) and Object 3 (z=0.391) is gaining mass from their surroundings. Object 3 (z=0.391) has a higher z than object 2 (z=0.243) because object 3 (z=0.391) is gaining a higher rate of mass relative to its own size than object 2 (still both are gaining mass from the bridge). Object 1 (z=0.057) has a higher z value than NGC 7603 (z=0.029), which may mean object 1 (z=0.057) is gaining mass from NGC 7603 (z=0.029) through the arm connecting them.

Comments: Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2016-09-17 04:59:00

Unique-IP document downloads: 49 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus