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. If quasars are nearby, 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 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.
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. Kierein and 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.) have an intrinsic Compton effect red shift concentrated at or very near the object's surface.
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.
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.
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 measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ever wonder what causes gravity? See the new book: PUSHING GRAVITY.
The videotape, "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.
